HOMES    FOR    SOLDIERS 


HEARINGS 


BEFORE  THE 

COMMITTEE  ON  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS  OF 
THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-SIXTH  CONGEESS 

FIRST  SESSION 
ON 

H.  R.  487 


MAY  27  TO  JUNE  28,  1919 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1919 


HOMES    FOR    SOLDIERS 


HEARINGS 


BEFORE  THE 


COMMITTEE  ON  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS  OF 
THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-SIXTH  CONGKESS 

FIRST  SESSION 
ON 

H.  R.  487 


MAY  27  TO  JUNE  28,  1919 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1919 


COMMITTEE  ON  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS. 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 
SIXTY-SIXTH  CONGRESS. 

N.  J.  SINNOTT,  Oregon,  Chairman. 

ADDISON  T.  SMITH,  Idaho.  JOHN  S.  BENIIAM,  Indiana. 

JOHN  A.  ELSTON,  California.  JOHN  W.   SUMMERS,  Washington. 

BERTRAND  H.  SNELL,  New  York.  SCOTT  FERRIS,  Oklahoma. 

CHARLES  A.  NICHOLS,  Michigan.  EDWARD  T.  TAYLOR,  Colorado. 

WILLIAM  J.  GRAHAM,  Illinois.  JOHN  E.  RAKER,  California. 

JOHN  M.  BAER,  North  Dakota.  JAMES  H.  MAPES,  Utah. 

BENIGNO  C.  HERNANDEZ,  New  Mexico.        JOHN  N.  TILLMAN,  Arkansas. 
HAYES  B.  WHITE,  Kansas.  HARRY  L.  GANDY,  South  Dakota. 

WILLIAM  N.  VAILE,  Colorado.  HUGH  S.  HERSMAN,  California. 

HENRY  E.  BARBOUR,  California.  PAUL  B.  JOHNSON,  Mississippi. 

EDWARD  D.  BALDWIN,  Clerk.  , 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

(Index  of  witnesses  at  end  of  volume.) 


Statement  of—  Page. 

Hon.  Frank  W.  Mondell,  Representative  from  Wyoming 3,  23,  52 

Hon.  Franklin  K.  Lane,  Secretary  of  the  Interior 30 

Thomas  C.  Atkeson,  representative  National  Grange,  Patrons  of  Hus- 
bandry   69 

Hoyt  Chamberlain,  secretary  National  Civic  Betterment  League 77 

Henry  Sterling,  legislative  agent  American  Federation  of  Labor 81 

Hon.  Charles  B.  Timberlake,  Representative  from  Colorado 93 

J.  H.  Richards,  attorney  from  Boise,  Idaho 97 

Gen.  Charles  H.  Cole,  Boston,  Mass.,  Twenty-sixth  Division 105 

Hon.  Riley  J.  Wilson,  Representative  from  Louisiana 113 

Hon.  A.  P.  Davis,  Director  Reclamation  Service 121,  429,  480 

H.  F.  Hunter,  supervisor  of  agriculture,  Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St. 

Paul   Railroad 130 

John  I.  Gibson,  Michigan  Land  Settlement  Commission 147 

D.  V.   Chisholm,   legislative  representative   Spanish-American   War 
Veterans 157 

Col.  McElroy,  National  Tribune,  Grand  Army  of  the  Republic 159 

Wilbur  A.  Nelson,  secretary  Tennessee  Soldiers'  Settlement  Board—  167 

Hon.  William  Kent,  United  States  Tariff  Commission 176 

Hon.  John  N.  Garner,  Representative  from  Texas 187 

Western  Starr,  Farmers'  National  Single  Tax  League 204 

Carl  Brannin,  secretary  Farmers'  Single  Tax  League 222 

Hon.  F.  R.  Gooding,  former  governor  of  Idaho 228 

Hon.  J.  B.  A.  Robertson,  governor  of  Oklahoma 247 

Hon.  Frank  Park,  Representative  from  Georgia 255 

H.  Guy  Hathorn,  investment  banker,  Memphis,  Tenn 260 

Hon.  D.  W.  Davis,  governor  of  Idaho 271 

Hon.  Dick  T.  Morgan,  Representative  from  Oklahoma 280 

Hon.  W.  D.  Boies,  Representative  from  Iowa 294 

Capt.  Ellis  Bashure,  financial  section,  United  States  Army 328 

E.  Philip  Rosenthal,  Human  Welfare  Association 331 

Hon.  Herbert  J.  Drane,  Representative  from  Florida 348 

T.  C.  Atkeson.  representative  National  Grange,  Patrons  of  Husbandry.  351 

Hon.  Harry  L.  Gandy,  Representative  from  South  Dakota 381 

Benjamin  C.  Marsh,  Farmers'  National  Council 388 

J.  N.  Cox,  representing  governor  of  Tennessee 415 

Charles  Springer,  representing  governor  of  New  Mexico 416 

Hon.  J.  W.  Summers,  Representative  from  Washington 423 

Hon.  John  McDuffie,  Representative  from  Alabama 424 

Capt.  K.  S.  Littlejohn,  United  States  Engineers 471 

Caleb  R.  Layton,  Representative  from  Delaware 476 

W.   I.   Drummond,   chairman  board  governors,   International  Farm 

Congress 502 

Hon.  Newton  D.  Baker,  Secretary  of  War 518 

in 


IV  CONTENTS. 

Statement  of— Continued  Page. 

Hon.  William  R.  Wood,  Representative  from  Indiana 531 

R.  E.  Shepherd,  Jerome,  Idaho 555 

Mrs.  Haviland  H.  Lund,  secretary  of  the  Forward-to-the-Land  League...  558 

Hon.  Frank  W.  Mondell,  Representative  from  Wyoming 595 

Elwood  W.  Titus,  representative  New  York  State  Federation  of  Farm 

Bureaus 618 

John  D.  Miller,  representative  Dairymen's  League 629 

F.  A.  Saulsbury,  president  Ontario  County  Farm  Bureau  Association 630 

Charles  D.  Porter,  president  Orleans  County  Farm  Bureau  Association 631 

Hon.  Robert  M.  McCracken,  former  Representative  from  Idaho 643 

Mr.  Emile  A.  Lehmann,  former  private,  Company  D,  Three  hundred  and 

twenty-sixth  Infantry,  United  States  Army 647 

H.  C.  Hallam,  publicity  agent,  Southern  Settlement  and  Development 

Organization 653 

Mrs.  W.  H.  Oxley,  representing  herself,  Washington,  D.  C 669 

Hon.  Scott  Ferris,  Representative  from  Oklahoma 677 

J.  J.  Harris,  president  and  general  manager  Big  Horn  Irrigation  &  Power 

Co.,  Montana 678 

Hugh  Jeffries,  president  American  Military  Reform  Association 694 

William  L.  Hansen,  Salt  Lake  City,  bishop  and  manager  colonization 

department,  Mormon  Church 728 

Hon.  William  W.  Hastings,  Representative  from  Oklahoma,  letter  from. . .  751 

Hon.  William  B.  Wilson,  Secretary  of  Labor,  letter  from 755 

W.  R.  Green,  jr.,  Buhl,  Idaho,  formerly  United  States  Army 761 

J.  Leo  Meehan,  chairman  soldiers'  settlement  committee,  Utah  American 

Legion,  letter  from 778 

Hon .  William  Spry,  former  governor  of  Utah 778 

Appendix  A. — Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior. 

Appendix  B.— Report  of  Chairman  N.  J.  Sinnott  to  the  House  of  Representatives. 


HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 


COMMITTEE  ON  PUBLIC  LANDS, 

HOUSE  or  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Tuesday,  May  27,  1919. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  Honorable  Nicholas  J. 
Sinnott  (chairman)  presiding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen,  this  meeting  has  been  called  to  con- 
sider the  matter  of  the  soldiers'  settlement  bill.  We  have  a  report 
from  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  which  will  be  printed  in  the 
hearings.  Secretary  Lane  was  to  be  here  this  morning,  and  also 
Mr.  Mondell  and  Mr.  Davis,  and  Mr.  Cory.  Mr.  Mondell  seems  to 
be  the  only  one  here  just  at  the  present  time,  and  if  the  committee 
wishes,  we  shall  be  pleased  to  hear  him. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  FRANK  W.  MONDELL,  A  REPRESENTATIVE 
IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  WYOMING. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
committee  to  H.  R.  487,  a  bill  to  provide  employment  and  rural 
homes  for  those  who  have  served  with  the  military  and  naval  forces 
through  the  reclamation  of  lands  to  be  known  as  the  "  National  Sol- 
dier Settlement  Act." 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  said  H.  R.  487 : 


A  BILL  To  provide  employment  and  rural  homes  for  those  who  have  served  with   the 
lilitary    and    naval    forces    through 
National  Soldier  Settlement  Act.'' 


military    and    naval    forces    through    the    reclamation    of    lands    to    be    known    as    the 


Be  H  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  to  provide  employment  and 
rural  homes  for  those  who  have  served  with  the  military  or  naval  forces  of 
the  United  States  during  the  war  between  the  United  States  and  Germany 
and  her  allies  and  have  been  honorably  separated  or  discharged  therefrom  or 
placed  in  the  Regular  Army  Reserve,  and  former  American  citizens  who 
served  with,  and  were  honorably  separated  or  discharged  from  the  military  or 
naval  forces  of  any  of  the  nations  allied  against  the  Central  Powers,  and  who 
have  been  repatriated,  all  of  whom  are  hereinafter  referred  to  as  soldiers, 
there  is  hereby  established  a  fund  in  the  Treasury  to  be  known  as  the  "  Na- 
tional Soldier  Settlement  Fund,"  hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  "  Fund,"  to 
be  administered  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  hereinafter  referred  to  as  the 
"  Secretary,"  for  the  purposes  herein  stated  and  as  hereinafter  provided. 

SEC.  2.  That  the  Secretary  is  authorized  to  use  the  Fund  for  the  purposes 
of  this  act.  He  may  acquire  by  gift,  purchase,  deed  in  trust,  or  otherwise,  the 
necessary  lauds  for  Soldier  Settlement  Projects,  hereinafter  referred  to  as 
"  Projects,"  and  may  withdraw,  utilize,  and  dispose  of  by  contract  and  deed 
public  land*  suitable  for  surli  purpose*.  No  lands  shall  be  acquired,  however 
unless  the  price  to  be  paid,  and  the  conditions  under  which  they  are  to  be 
acquired  shall  be  approved  by  (a)  a  representative  of  the  Governor  of  the 
State  in  which  the  lands  are  located;  (b)  an  appraiser  designated  by  the 
Federal  Farm  Loan  Board;  and  (c)  the  Secretary.  Projects  shall  be  selected 
with  a  view  to  the  development  of  one  or  more  projects  in  each  of  the  several 
States  in  which  feasible  projects  may  be  found. 

a 


4  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

SEC.  3.  That  the  Seci'etary  is  authorized  through  such  agencies  as  he  may 
provide  to  engage  in  such  undertakings  and  do  and  perform  such  work  as  in 
his  opinion  is  necessary  for  the  permanent  reclamation  or  development  of  the 
lands  of  projects,  and  when  he  deems  essential  to  place  them  in  condition  for 
use  and  cultivation,  including  the  building  of  essential  public  roads.  The 
.Secretary  shall,  so  far  as  possible,  utilize  the  services  of  soldiers  for  suc-li 
purposes. 

The  Secretary  may  also,  through  agreement  with  soldiers,  m:ike  provision  for 
necessary  improvements,  but  the  contribution  from  the  fund  shall  in  no  single 
case  exceed  $1,200,  nor  in  excess  of  three-quarters  of  the  cost  or  value  of  the 
improvements. 

SKC.  4.  That  the  lands  of  projects  shall  bo  subdivided  into  farms  suitable 
for  the  support  of  a  family  and  in  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary  into  smaller 
farm  workers'  tracts.  Dedication  may  ho  made  for  schools,  churches,  com- 
munity centers,  and  other  public  purposes.  Town  sites  suitable  for  the  pur- 
poses of  the  project  may  bo  established,  developed.  ;md  sold  as  provided  heroin. 

SEC.  5.  That  soldieis  who  are  not  the  owners  or  proprietors  of  farms  or  rural 
homes  shall  be  eligible  as  purchasers  of  a  farm  or  farm  workers'  tract.  I'ref- 
erence  shall  be-  given  to  those  who  have  boon  employed  in  the  development  of 
such  projects,  and  as  between  applicants  with  a  view  of  safeguarding  the 
settler  and  the  United  States,  so  far  as  practicable,  against  loss  or  failure.  The 
Secretary  shall  make  regulations  general  in  character,  or  applicable  to  specific 
projects,  as  to  residence  and  cultivation  with  a  view  of  carrying  out  the  pur- 
pose of  making  the  soldier  settlements  the  permanent  home  of  the  soldier 
purchasers. 

SEC.  6.  That  sale  prices  shall  be  fixed  with  a  view  of  repaying  the  total 
cost  of  each  project,  and  the  price  fixed  for  each  farm,  tract,  or  lot  shall  repre- 
sent as  nearly  as  practicable  its  relative  and  comparative  selling  value.  Ap- 
proved applicants  shall  at  the  time  of  entering  into  contract  of  purchase  make 
a  first  payment  of  ."»  per  centum  of  the  sale  price.  The  balance  shall  be  paid 
in  amortizing  payments  extending  over  a  period  to  be  fixed  by  the  Secretary, 
not  to  exceed  forty  years.  Sums  advanced  for  improvements  shall  be  repaid 
in  amortizing  payments  extending  over  a  period  to  bo  lixod  by  the  Secretary, 
not  to  exceed  twenty  years.  The  amortizing  payments  shall  hear  interest  at. 
the  rate  of  4  per  centum  per  annum,  payable  annually,  computed  from  date 
of  contract.  The  contracts  for  the  sale  of  the  farms,  tracts,  and  lots  shall 
provide  for  cancellations  and  forfeitures  of  payments  made  under  the  contract 
for  failure  to  comply  therewith. 

SEC.  7.  Patents  or  deeds  to  project  lands  issued  within  ten  years  from  the 
date  of  contract  of  sale  shall  contain  the  condition  that,  no  transfer,  assign- 
ment, mortgage,  or  lease  made  during  that  period  shall  be  valid  without  the 
approval  of  the  Secretary,  and  no  transfer,  assignment,  mortgage,  or  lease  of 
any  right,  title,  or  interest  held  under  a  contract  of  sale  shall  bo  valid  at  any 
time  without  the  approval  of  the  Secretary.  The  Secretary  shall  make  all 
necessary  regulations  for  the  carrying  out  of  the  provisions  and  purposes  of 
this  act  and  for  safeguarding  the  interests  of  the  settler  and  of  the  United 
States,  and  is  authorized  to  issue  patents  or  deeds  for  the  public  and  private 
lands  embraced  in  farms,  tracts,  and  lots  within  projects. 

SEC.  8.  That  the  Secretary  is  also  authorized  to  make  short-time  loans 
from  the  fund,  not  to  exceed  $800  at  any  one  time,  to  a  soldier  settler  for 
the  purchase  of  necessary  live  stock  and  equipment,  and  provision  shall  be 
made  for  the  repayment  of  such  loans  during  a  period  not  to  exceed  live 
years  with  interest  on  deferred  payments  at  4  per  centum  per  annum,  payable 
annually,  computed  from  date  of  contract:  I'mrhlcil.  That  no  such  loans  shall 
exceed  (50  per  centum  of  the  cost  of  the  live  stork  and  equipment  purchased. 

SKC.  0.  That  whenever  any  Slate  shall  provide  funds  to  ho  expended  in  co- 
operation with  the  United  States  to  provide  rural  homes  for  soldiers,  the  Secre- 
tary shall  have  authority  to  enter  into  contracts  for  such  cooperation,  and 
when  (lie  State  shall  furnish  2.~>  per  centum  of  the  necessary  funds  the  Secre- 
tary may  authorize  the  State,  subject  to  his  general  supervision,  to  carry  on 
the  subdivision  of  the  land,  improvement  of  farms,  and  the  aid  and  direction 
of  development  after  settlement.  The  Secretary  is  authorized  to  provide  for 
reimbursement  of  funds  so  advanced  by  the  State.  He  may  also  cooperate 
with  other  agencies  to  the  extent  he  may  deem  advisable  and  likewise  pro- 
vide for  reimbursement  to  thorn  of  funds  advanced. 

SKC.  30.  That  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  into  effort  the  provisions  of  this 
act  the  sum  of  $r>00,( KM ».(M HI  is  hereby  authorized  to  be  appropriated. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  5 

Mr.  Chairman,  since  long  before  the  close  of  the  war,  public- 
spirited  men  have  had  in  mind  what  we  might  be  able  to  do  for 
our  returning  soldiers  and  sailors  in  the  way  of  affording  them 
opportunities  to  secure  homes  on  the  lands.  Ours  has  always  been 
a  land  of  wonderful  opportunity  in  the  matter  of  acquiring" homes. 
At  the  close  of  the  Civil  War,  the  returning  soldiers  of  both  armies 
formed  the  vanguard  of  a  movement  of  settlement  and  development 
that  is  without  parallel  in  the  history  of  the  world.  That  has  been 
true  at  the  close  of  every  war  of  the  Republic  since  Revolutionary 
times.  Within  a  year  after  the  signing  of  the  armistice,  at  least 
twice  as  many  men  will  bid  farewell  to  the  Colors  and  return  to 
their  homes  as  formed  the  armies  on  both  sides  of  the  Civil  War.  but 
the  opportunities  that  awaited  those  soldiers  no  longer  exist.  It  is 
true  that  in  many  parts  of  the  West,  there  are  still  homestead  oppor- 
tunities, but  the  lands  are  not  as  fair  and  favorably  situated  as  the 
lands  of  the  Mississippi  Valley.  Still,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  we 
are  granting  them  to  the  soldiers  in  larger  areas  than  formerly,  they 
•do  afford  opportunities  for  those  who  desire  to  engage  in  the  char- 
acter of  agriculture  which  can  be  successfully  carried  on  on  the 
dry  lands.  There  are  some  opportunities  under  the  reclamation 
projects;  splendid  opportunities  so  far  as  they  exist.  There  are 
still  areas  of  cheap  lands  in  the  country,  although  such  areas  are 
becoming  smaller  and  less  numerous  all  the  time;  and  in  view  of 
the  large  number  of  men  who  are  returning,  the  opportunities  to 
.-('cure  lands  and  homes  will  not  meet  the  demand  unless  the  Federal 
Government  affords  some  aid  in  the  matter. 

These  matters  were  all  considered,  as  I  said  at  the  beginning,  even 
before  the  signing  of  the  armistice  by  a  great  many  people  who  are 
interested  in  the  general  welfare  of  the  soldiers  and  who  are  inter- 
ested in  the  general  development  of  the  country.  The  Secretary  of 
the  Interior  took  up  the  matter  very  early  and  very  eloquently,  and 
urged  it  very  forcifully.  Members  of  Congress  introduced  bills. 
The  present  chairman  of  this  committee  Mr.  Sinnott  introduced  a 
bill.  The  gentleman  from  Oklahoma,  Mr.  Morgan,  introduced  a 
bill.  The  then  chairman  of  this  committee,  Mr.  Ferris,  had  the 
matter  under  consideration.  The  gentleman  from  Colorado,  Mr. 
Taylor,  introduced  a  bill  which  went  to  the  Committee  on  Irrigation 
and  WHS  favorably  reported.  A  bill  was  introduced  by  the  gentle- 
man from  South  Carolina,  Mr.  Byrnes,  and  went  to  the  Committee 
on  Appropriations.  I  introduced  a  similar  bill  which  went  to  the 
Committee  on  Appropriations.  I  think  some  other  gentlemen  intro- 
duced bills.  I  do  not  remember  all  of  them. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  Mr.  Raker  introduced  a  bill. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Yes ;  Mr.  Raker  introduced  a  bill. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  I  notice  from  this  morning's  record  that  Mr. 
Tillman  also  introduced  a  bill. 

.Mr.  MONDELL.  Mr.  Tillman  has  also  introduced  a  bill. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Smith  of  Idaho  also  introduced  a  similar  bill  with 
reference  to  reclamation  projects. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  That  is  true.  Almost  every  man  from  the  western 
country,  and  many  from  other  parts  of  the  country,  who  have  a  spe- 
cial interest  in  these  matters,  were  active  in  promoting  the  proposi- 
tion of  soldier-land  settlements,  but  the  Congress  which  expired  the 


6  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

4th  of  March  was  a  war  Congress.  It  had  to  do  with  war  mat- 
ters. It  did  not  have  the  time  to  take  up  the  matters  of  reconstruc- 
tion, restoration  and  development.  So  that  comes  before  this  Con- 
gress. 

At  the  close  of  the  recent  Congress,  I  remained  in  Washing- 
ton, and,  taking  advantage  of  all  that  had  been  said  and  all  that  had 
been  done,  and  all  that  had  been  suggested  and  proposed  in  speeches 
and  arguments  and  bills,  I  set  to  work  to  draft,  or  to  aid  in  draft- 
ing a  bill  which  would  embrace  what  seemed  to  be  the  best  features 
of  the  various  suggestions  that  had  been  made,  with  a  view  to  pre- 
senting them  in  a  concrete,  and  definite  form. 

I  conferred  with  many  Members  on  both  sides  of  the  House:  in 
fact,  all  of  the  Members  who  had  evinced  a  particular  interest  in  the 
matter  who  were  then  in  Washington.  I  conferred  with  the  officials 
of  the  Interior  Department,  with  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  and 
with  gentlemen  who  he  had  called  to  his  aid,  among  others  Mr.  Cory 
and  Mr.  Smythe.  At  my  request,  and  as  it  developed  later  at  the 
request  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  also,  Mr.  Elwood  Mead. 
who  perhaps,  has  had  more  experience  in  land-settlement  work  than 
any  man  in  America,  or  in  Australia,  where  he  did  a  great  deal  of 
his  work,  came  on  from  Berkeley  and  aided  with  suggestions  in  the 
formulation  of  the  legislation.  So  the  bill  you  have  before  you  is 
my  bill  only  in  the  sense  that  I  availed  myself  of  all  of  the  sug- 
gestions that  had  been  made  and  that  had  been  urged  in  regard  to 
the  legislation,  and  tried  to  put  in  a  clear  and  concise  form  what 
seemed,  after  consultation,  to  be  the  plan  that  commended  itself  to 
a  majority  of  the  gentlemen  who  had  given  the  matter  considera- 
tion ;  after  a  tentative  bill  had  thus  been  drafted,  in  cooperation  and 
in  consultation,  a  meeting  was  held  at  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior,  at  which  all  of  the  Members  who  had  been  active  in 
this  matter,  who  were  then  in  the  city,  were  present. 

Some  of  the  gentlemen  who  have  been  very  active  were  not  pres- 
ent at  that  particular  meeting,  simply  because  they  had  not  then  ar- 
rived in  Washington  prior  to  the  assembling  of  Congress.  But  at 
the  Secretary's  office  we  had  a  meeting  of  representative  men  of  the 
House  and  of  the  Senate  and  of  the  department.  Some  suggestions 
of  amendment  or  change  were  made  and  agreed  upon  there,  and  the 
bill  which  is  now  before  you  is  the  measure  that  was  then  tentatively 
agreed  upon.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  any  of  the  gentlemen  there 
present  are  absolutely  bound  by  every  provision  in  this  bill.  I  think 
all  have  open  minds  with  regard  to  every  provision  of  it;  but  from 
the  examination  that  we  were  able  to  give  it,  with  the  light  we  had, 
with  the  suggestions  that  we  had  received  from  the  gentlemen  who 
had  introduced  bills  and  gentlemen  who  had  discussed  the  matter. 
we  present  to  you  the  product  of  our  best  judgment  for  your  consid- 
eration. 

Now.  briefly,  as  to  the  plan  and  purpose  of  the  bill.  It  is  proposed 
to  secure  by  purchase,  gift,  by  deed,  or  in  some  other  manner  areas 
of  land  in  the  various  States  and  in  all  of  the  various  States  where 
such  lands  arc  available  in  sufficient  areas  wrhen  divided  into  farms 
to  form  complete  and  comparatively  independent  communities 

Mr.  SNELL  (interposing).  Do  you' want  us  to  ask  yon  questions  as 
you  go  along  or  would  you  prefer  that  we  should  wait  until  you  get 
through  ? 


HOMES  FOE   SOLDIERS.  7 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Would  you  mind  letting  me  complete  my  first  state- 
ment, in  the  meantime  making  a  memorandum  of  those  things  you 
have  in  mind,  because  I  may  answer  what  you  have  in  mind  as  I  go 
along. 

The  community  settlement  idea  is  at  the.  bottom  of  this  legislation. 
It  is  believed  that  development  by  communities  is  essential ;  that  only 
in  that  way  can  we  reclaim  large  areas  of  land  that  are  now  compara- 
tively useless,  but  contain  all  the  essential  elements  of  fertility  when 
they  are  made  available;  lands  that  while  they  are  not  now  available 
for  intensive  cultivation  and  successful  use  by  reclamation  in  the 
various  forms  that  may  be  necessary,  depending  upon  the  character 
of  the  area,  may  be  made  very  desirable  and  very  attractive  places  of 
residence  and  successful  farming  communities. 

I  am  emphasizing  this  feature  of  the  matter  because  that  is  the 
very  base  of  this  soldier-settlement  bill — the  community  idea.  If 
the  thought  on  which  this  bill  is  based  and  on  which  practically  all 
of  the  bills  have  been  based,  as  I  understand  it,  is  carried  out,  no 
development  will  be  attempted  where  there  is  not  available  a  suffi- 
cient area  of  suitable  land  for  a  good-sized,  comparatively  independ- 
ent community,  and  the  development  will  be  with  such  reservations 
for  towns  and  community  centers  as  may  be  necessary  to  foster  and 
develop  and  maintain  the  community  idea. 

It  is  believed  that  areas  of  this  sort  can  be  found  in  almost  every 
State  of  the  Union  except  possibly  some  of  the  unusually  fortunate 
States  of  the  Mississippi  Valley,  where  practically  all  of  the  lands 
are  now  under  successful  cultivation.  There  may  be  a  few  States 
that  will  not  furnish  areas  such  as  we  have  in  mind,  but  most  of 
them  will.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  curiously  enough,  one  of  the  projects 
that  is  being  tentatively  considered.  I  am  told,  is  within  25  miles  of 
Boston  where,  as  the  cheap,  virgin  lands  of  the  West  beckoned, 
these  lands  of  the  early  Pilgrim  fathers  were  abandoned,  and  yet 
those  lands  are  susceptible  of  development  at  a  reasonable  cost  for 
fertilization,  clearing,  leveling,  etc.,  in  a  way  to  make  them  very 
attractive  and  very  profitable  farming  communities. 

To  go  a  little  further  on  the  community  idea,  and  as  to  the  impor- 
tance of  it,  most  of  the  gentlemen  here  know  something  about  pion- 
eering and  the  development  of  the  West,  It  is  not  so  long  ago  that 
the  Mississippi  Valley  was  a  pioneer  country.  It  was  when  I  was  a 
boy.  People  do  not  mind  exercising  unusual  economies,  being  unus- 
ually careful  in  expenditure  or  working  unusually  long  hours  and 
undergoing  rather  unusual  privations  if  everyone  in  the  community 
is  doing  the  same  tiling,  and  they  are  doing  it  for  themselves.  That 
is  what  has  developed  the  West.  That  is  what  has  developed  the 
country  from  the  Alleghenies  to  the  Pacific.  You  all  know  what 
the  pioneers  have  gone  through  and  suffered.  We  do  not  expect 
that  the  pioneers  on  these  projects  shall  be  required  to  go  through 
what  the  pioneers  that  I  lived  with  as  a  boy  did,  and  as  the  pioneers 
of  to-day  are  doing  in  many  parts  of  the  West :  but  educated  people, 
people  who  have  been  accustomed  to  the  best  of  things,  have  cheer- 
fully, thankfully,  and  hopefully  gone  through  all  of  the  work  of 
pioneering  because  all  their  neighbors  were  doing  the  same.  They 
were  inspired  by  the  splendid  spirit  of  pioneer  development.  There 
is  nothing  more  inspiring  in  the  world  than  the  laying  of  founda- 
tions, making  two  blades  of  grass  grow  wThere  only  one  or  none  grew 


8  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

before,  or  making  useful  plants  grow  where  only  comparatively  use- 
less plants  grew  before;  building  new  communities,  establishing  new 
institutions,  and  developing  all  of  the  institutions  of  a  civlized, 
prosperous  community  in  regions  where  the  land  has  been  largely 
unused  and  uninhabited.  . 

Under  the  pioneer  idea,  with  the  spirit  of  the  pioneer  which  we 
hope  to  infuse  into  these  communities,  wonderful  things  can  be  done 
which  could  not  be  accomplished  at  all  if  you  attempted  to  aid  the 
individual  here  and  there  and  elsewhere,  surrounded  by  people  who 
are  very  comfortably  situated,  who  are  riding  around  in  their  high- 
powered  automobiles,  who  have  made  their  way  in  the  world  and 
have  established  themselves.  It  is  not  plea-ant  to  have  to  live  dif- 
ferently from  your  neighbors.  It  is  a  perfect  joy  to  join  with  your 
neighbors  in  developing  a  country.  Every  man  who  has  lived  in 
the  West  can  bear  testimony  to  that  fact,  and  the  West  in 
this  respect  has  meant  anywhere  beyond  the  Alleghenies  in  the 
recollection  of  someone  still  living. 

Now  the  thought  is  that  a  ft  IT  these  areas  have  been  secured,  arid 
in  the  West,  cut  over  in  the  Northwest  and  in  parts  of  the  South,  over- 
flowed or  partly  overflowed  in  some  sections,  abandoned  in  others, 
the  soldiers  and  sailors  will  be  invited  to  aid  in  the  work  of  develop- 
ing and  restoring  them.  They  will  be  paid  good  wages  in  that  work 
of  development  and  they  will  be  given  to  understand  that  under  the 
provisions  of  the  bill  the  man  who  works  on  the  project,  and  inci- 
dentally the  man  who  works  longest  on  the  project,  because  that 
would  be  within  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary,  shall  have  the  prefer- 
ence in  the  selection  of  tracts  when  they  shall  be  divided.  In  the 
development  of  these  projects  it  is  proposed  to  utilize  the  splendid 
organization  of  the  Reclamation  Service,  expanding  and  enlarging, 
increasing  and  extending  it.  It  is  expected  that  the  work  shall  be 
done  with  the  very  best  organization  that  can  be  had  with  the  very 
best  appliances  that  are  available,  and  with  the  best  skill  that  can 
be  secured  toward  the  development  of  each  one  of  these  projects  into 
a  condition  where  they  shall  be  fit  for  successful  cultivation  and  for 
the  establishment  of  homes.  This  will  mean  the  pulling  of  stumps 
in  some  places  and  the  building  of  dams  in  others,  levees  elsewhere, 
and  a  great  variety  of  work. 

Under  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  as  it  stands — and  this  is  a  rather 
important  matter — the  Secretary  may  go  into  this  work  of  develop- 
ment as  far  as  he  deems  it  essential  to  go,  in  order  to  place  the  lands 
in  condition  where  the  individual  can  with  his  own  labor  utilize  them 
for  farming  purposes. 

That  will  mean  that  in  some  cases  it  will  be  necessary  to  do  a  con- 
siderable amount  of  work  in  leveling,  grubbing,  and  clearing,  in 
addition  to  the  first  initial  work  of  reclamation.  In  other  places 
where  the  lands  are  comparatively  level,  where  the  brush  is  small 
and  the  individual  can  clear  it,  it  will  not  be  necessary  for  the  Gov- 
ernment to  go  further  than  is  necessary  to  put  the  land  in  condition 
\\here  the  individual  can  begin  fanning  operations  and  complete 
his  own  additional  work  of  clearing  and  reclamation,  whate\er  it 
may  be. 

The  THAI  UMAX.  That  may  also  include  the  drainage  of  lands,  or 
the  drainage  of  wet  lands? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  9 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Oh,  yes;  of  course  that  is  one  of  the  very  important 
features  of  the  plan.  Some  of  the  areas  taken  up  will  be  overflowed 
lands  or  lands  that  are  subject  to  overflow  and  that  are  tremendously 
rich  when  reclaimed.  They  can  be  made  entirely  sanitary  by  very 
simple  means.  From  one  to  three  years  will  elapse  from  the  time  a 
project  is  undertaken  to  the  time  when  the  lands  can  be  subdivided 
into  farms  of  the  size  deemed  necessary  for  the  support  of  a  family. 
During  that  period,  if  the  soldier  is  reasonably  diligent  and  fairly 
saving,  he  can,  even  though  he  start  without  any  savings,  save  enough 
to  make  the  initial  payment  of  five  per  cent  on  his  farm,  which  will 
be  $250  in  the  case  of  a  tract  costing  $5,000.  The  farms  are  to  be 
priced  in  accordance  with  their  value  as  compared  with  the  value  of 
the  other  farms,  and  with  a  view  of  returning  the  total  cost  of 
reclamation  and  development.  If  $5.000,000  be  expended  on  a 
project,  the  total  of  the  farm  values  fixed  for  sale  purposes  must 
be  $5,000,000,  and  the  price  fixed  on  each  farm  must  be  a  price  which 
measures  its  selling  value  as  compared  with  the  other  farms.  It 
will  require  judgment  and  intelligence  of  a  high  order  to  determine 
those  values,  but,  of  course,  that  is  essential  if  we  are  to  dispose  of 
the  tracts.  Some  of  the  tracts  will,  of  course,  be  much  more  at- 
tractive than  others,  and,  of  course,  the  attractive  lands  must  bear 
the  higher  price  in  order  that  equity  shall  be  done  among  all  the 
purchasers. 

The  bill  also  provides  for  farm  workers'  tracts.  That  is  in  line 
with  what  has  been  done  in  Australia  and  in  California,  where  they 
have  found  that  there  are  certain  men  who  prefer  to  work  for  others 
on  a  farm  rather  than  actually  farm  for  themselves,  further  than 
having  a  home  and  a  garden  where  they  can  raise  vegetables,  fruits, 
poultry,  and  that  sort  of  thing.  Those  tracts  would  also  be  avail- 
able for  mechanics  of  the  village  community,  and  it  is  believed  that 
those  tracts  will  be  very  helpful  in  the  development  of  a  project. 
Thev  will  be  located,  naturally,  about  the  village  settlement  or  com- 
munity center.  When  the  time  arrives  for  the  sale  of  the  farms 
which  have  been  divided  the  soldier  who  has  worked  on  a  project 
or  on  projects  of  that  kind  has  the  preference,  and,  naturally,  as  I 
said  a  moment  ago,  in  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary,  the  soldier 
who  had  shown  the  most  industry  and  interest  might  be  given  a 
preference  over  one  who  had  not  worked  so  long  or,  perhaps,  so 
faithfully.  Acting  within  his  discretion  the  Secretary  would  dis- 
pose of  the  tracts.  The  purpose  is  to  maintain  those  settlements  as 
the  homes  of  the  soldiers  who  purchase,  and  to  prevent,  if  possible, 
the  purchase  of  the  lands  by  outsiders  or  the  consolidation  of  the 
farms. 

With  that  object  in  view,  it  is  provided  that  there  can  be  no  trans- 
fer before  the  Government's  obligation  is  met  without  the  permis- 
sion of  the  Secretary,  and  that,  in  addition  to  that,  there  can  be  no 
transfer  within  10  years  after  the  sale  without  the  permission  of  the 
Secretary.  That  is  to  meet  a  <-ise  where  a  community  might  be  par- 
ticularly prosperous  and  men  might  be  tempted  to  realize  on  the 
increment  and  dispose  of  their  land  by  paying  off  the  Government 
obligation.  Those  are  all  matters  for  your  consideration,  and  I  am 
simply  stating  the  provisions  of  the  b'ill,  as  you  will  note  them  as 
you  read  them. 


10  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

When  a  soldier  has  picked  out  his  tract  and  paid  his  5  per  cent,  in 
a  majority  of  cases,  or  in  many  cases,  he  will  need  assistance  in  the 
matter  of  building  his  house,  and  provision  is  made  for  giving  him 
such  assistance  up  to  $1,200,  but  that  assistance  can  not  be  in  excess 
of  three-fourths  of  the  cost  or  value  of  the  improvements.  In  other 
words,  if  a  soldier  wants  a  house  and  barn  which  will  cost  $!,(>()< ),  a 
contract  might  be  made  with  him  to  make  those  improvements  for 
$1,200,  the  amount  which  the  Government  advances,  he  contribut- 
ing the  equivalent  of  $400  in  labor,  or  he  might  have  enough  cash  to 
meet  the  difference  between  the  amount  the  Government  advances 
and  the  amount  which  the  improvements  cost  in  order  to  reasonably 
secure  the  Government  in  its  investment, 

Plans  of  buildings  will  be  worked  out  by  the  service  suitable  to 
the  locality;  there  would,  of  course,  be  plans  of  buildings  at  various 
costs,  and  these  plans  would  be  available  to  the  settlers  with  a  view 
of  enabling  them  to  select  the  character  of  buildings  they  may  desire. 
The  service  would,  of  course,  give  the  settler  assistance  in  the  matter 
of  cooperative  buying  of  building  material,  and  in  every  possible 
way  aid  him  in  the  development  of  his  property.  After  the  soldier 
has  constructed  such  buildings  as  he  may  deem  essential,  in  many 
cases  he  will  need  some  further  assistance  in  the  purchase  of  live 
stock,  implements,  and  tools,  and  section  8  of  the  bill  authorizes 
short-time  loans  not  to  exceed  $800  to  secure  stock  and  equipment; 
and  there  is  a  provision  that  no  such  loan  shall  exceed  40  per  cent 
of  the  value  of  the  live  stock  and  equipment.  In  the  matter  of  pay- 
ments the  bill  provides  for  payments  over  a  period  of  40  years  on 
the  lands,  over  a  period  of  20  years  on  the  improvements,  and  over 
a  period  of  5  years  upon  advances  for  live  stock  and  equipment,  all 
at  4  per  cent. 

Those  are  the  most  important  features  of  the  bill,  and  I  do  not 
know  that  it  is  necessary  for  me  to  take  up  any  further  the  time  of 
the  committee  in  a  general  explanation.  I  will,  however,  be  glad  to 
answer  any  questions  that  gentlemen  may  have  to  ask  with  regard 
to  any  feature  of  the  bill. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  While  you  are  on  the  general  statement,  can  you 
explain  the  difference  between  your  bill  and,  for  instance,  the  Ferris 
bill,  which  is  identical  with  the  Raker  and  Taylor  bills? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  It  would  be  difficult  to  fully  explain  the  difference 
in  detail  between  this  bill  and  any  or  all  of  the  other  bills,  and  if  one 
started  to  explain  the  difference  between  this  bill  and  one  of  the 
others,  it  would  be  rather  essential  to  explain  the  difference  between 
this  bill  and  all  of  the  others.  However.  I  can  say  this,  that  I  think 
there  is  no  essential  difference  in  the  thought  and  purpose  underlying 
this  bill  and  the  thought  and  purpose  that  the  gentlemen  had  in 
mind  when  they  prepared  the  other  bills  that  have  been  presented. 
Under  the  bill  introduced  by  the  gentleman  from  Colorado.  Mr. 
Taylor,  and,  I  presume  under  the  bill  introduced  by  the  gentleman 
from  Oklahoma,  Mr.  Ferris,  about  all  that  is  proposed  in  this  bill 
could  luive  been  accomplished.  T.he  plan  or  general  purpose  is  the 
same.  As  1  said  at  the  beginning,  I  and  those  with  whom  1  labored 
and  collaborated  had  the  benefit  of  all  of  those  suggestions,  and  our 
endeavor  was  to  put  in  concrete  form  what  gentlemen  had  proposed, 
and  what  it  was  difficult  to  work  out  in  a  detailed  wav  without  more 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  11 

investigation,  suggestion,  and  cooperation  than  anyone  had  the  ad- 
vantage of  six  months  ago.  I  could  not  have  written  this  bill  except 
for  the  suggestions  that  had  been  made  in  former  bills,  and  our  labor, 
my  own  and  that  of  the  gentlemen  I  have  mentioned,  was  to  put  in 
concrete  form  and  in  logical  sequence  provisions  that  would  carry 
out  the  ideas  that  many  folks  have  had  in  their  minds  from  the 
beginning  in  connection  with  this  matter  of  soldier  settlements. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  notice  that  your  bill  confines  the  relief  or  the 
homes  to  soldiers  who  participated  in  the  war  with  Germany. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  While  the  other  bills,  as  I  understand  them,  pro- 
vide homes  for  all  soldiers. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  followed  that  plan  in  my  original  draft.  I  did 
not  have  an  opportunity  to  confer  with  all  of  the  gentlemen  who  had 
introduced  bills,  but  after  a  conference  among  the  gentlemen  who 
were  here,  it  seemed  to  be  the  consensus  of  opinion  that  while  some 
former  bills  did  not  definitely  limit  the  relief  to  soldiers  of  the  Great 
War,  that  was  believed  to  be  what  all  of  them  had  in  mind.  I  do  not 
know  as  to  that,  and  that  is  for  the  gentlemen  of  the  committee  to 
determine.  In  the  first  draft  of  my  bill,  I  followed  in  this  respect 
the  phraseology  of  another  bill,  which,  I  think,  would  have  included 
soldiers  other  than  those  of  the  Great  War. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  noticed  a  few  other  provisions,  to  which,  if  you 
will  permit  me,  I  should  like  to  call  your  attention,  so  that  you  can 
make  a  general  statement  in  regard  to  them.  The  other  bills  provide 
for  the  condemnation  of  land,  while  your  bill  does  not. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  have  omitted  that  from  the  bill  for  this  reason: 
In  the  first  place  there  is  a  good  deal  of  difference  of  opinion  as  to 
the  right  of  the  Federal  Government  to  go  into  a  State  and  condemn 
lands  for  such  purposes.  If  this  is  done  at  all  it  must  be  done,  of 
course,  under  the  State  laws.  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  necessary  to 
begin  this  great  work  by  writing  into  the  law  a  provision  that  some 
people  may  not  like  and  that  might  appear  offensive  to  some — as 
though  we  were  proposing  to  condemn  people's  homes  and  farms. 
I  think  it  will  be  entirely  unnecessary.  I  do  think  that  in  carrying 
out  the  provisions  of  the  bill  you  will  find  that  in  many  of  the 
States  the  tracts  that  may  be  needed,  for  instance,  for  reclamation, 
for  drainage,  and  that  sort  of  thing  may  be  condemned  under  the 
State  laws  without  any  definite  provision  in  this  legislation.  We  con- 
demn now  under  the  reclamation  law.  There  is  no  provision  in  the 
reclamation  law  for  condemnation,  if  I  recollect  rightly,  but  in 
every  arid  State  they  have  provided  for  condemnation  for  public 
purposes,  among  which  is  the  use  of  water  for  the  irrigation  of 
lands.  Most  of  the  States,  I  imagine,  that  have  swampy  or  over- 
flowed areas  have  such  legislation.  If  they  have  not,  that  is  some- 
thing for  us  to  meet  in  the  future. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  is  another  matter  I  want  to  call  your  atten- 
tion to :  Your  bill  excludes  soldiers  who  are  now  the  owners  or  pro- 
prietors of  farms  or  rural  homes. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Yes.  That  is  a  very  general  proposition,  and  it  dif- 
fers from  the  other  suggestions  that  have  been  made,  which  were  of 
a  very  great  variety  and  which  were  more  or  less  specific.  It  may 
develop  as  time  passes  that  we  may  find  soldiers  who  have  small 


12  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

places  that  they  perhaps  ought  to  keep  and  still  have  a  right  to 
acquire  one  of  these  farms.  That  is  a  matter  of  discretion,  and  the 
language  is  descriptive.  The  Secretary  under  that  provision  would 
have  some  considerable  discretion ;  but  it  states  the  view  that  I  had 
in  mind.  Our  purpose  was  to  provide  rural  homes  for  those  who 
were  not  otherwise  provided  for  in  the  way  of  farms  or  rural  homes. 
If  a  soldier  has  such  property  and  wants  to  secure  a  home  on  a 
project,  he  can  sell  it  and  use  the  proceeds  to  help  in  buying  and 
improving  the  new  home.  Of  course,  it  is  a  matter  for  the  committee 
to  consider  and  determine  whether  that  language  should  be  changed. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Section  8  of  the  Ferris  bill  provides  for  the  trans- 
fer to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  of  war  material. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  T*here  is  a  general  provision  of  law  which  will  bo 
carried  in  the  sundry  civil  bill,  and  possibly  in  the  deficiency  bill. 
for  the  sale  of  war  material  to  various  Government  agencies.  Now, 
let  us  not  lose  sight  of  this  fact:  This  is  not  a  bounty,  this  is  not  a 
pension,  and  this  is  not  a  gratuity :  wo  arc  going  to  do  everything  on 
earth  for  our  soldiers  except  to  rob  them  of  their  self-respect:  We 
will  not  do  that.  Nothing  would  have  that  effect  more  than  to  hold 
out  the  hope  that  the  Government  wv-^  giving  some  favored  soldiers 
farms.  That  is  not  our  purpose  at  all.  We  have  outlined  a  plan  un- 
der which  the  earnest  and  industrious  man  may  secure  a  farm,  and 
secure  it  with  his  own  efforts  if  he  is  ordinarily  fortunate.  There  is 
no  doubt  but  that  there  is  material  of  that  kind  that  can  be  used,  but 
if  we  got  the  material  from  the  War  Department,  or  get  it  anywhere 
else,  we  ought  to  pay  for  it.  Of  course  we  will  not  pay  a  high  price  for 
it  because  the  war  material  would  bo  taken  over  at  a  price  agreed 
upon.  Therefore,  this  fund  will  undoubtedly  acquire  quite  a  con- 
siderable amount  of  engineering  and  tractor  material  at  a  very  low 
figure,  but  it  will  be  charged  to  the  fund  under  that  general  pro- 
vision. 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  that  connection,  of  course,  it  would  not  be  a  gift  to 
the  soldiers  and  it  would  not  be  offered  that  way,  but  would  it  not 
be  better  to  take  over  all  of  that  material  that  can  be  used  by  the 
Reclamation  Service  that  the  War  Department  now  has  rather  than 
sell  it  at  a  great  sacrifice? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Yes;  and  that  is  the  purpose  of  the  general  measure 
to  which  I  have  referred,  before  it  is  sold  all  the  various  agencies  of 
the  Government  shall  be  considered,  and  the  sale  and  transfer  of 
such  material  as  they  require  shall  be  made  to  them. 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  is  merely  a  matter  of  bookkeeping,  or  the  charging 
of  one  fund  and  crediting  of  another. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  It  is  more  than  that. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  This  provision  was  put  in  there,  and  I  think  I  put  it 
in  myself,  because  the  Secretary  of  War  deliberately  ordered  some- 
thing like  75,000,000  pounds  of  T.  X.  T.  thrown  into  the  Atlantic 
Ocean,  and  it  was  through  desperate  efforts  made,  largely  on  my  part 
and  on  the  part  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  that  it  was  not  done. 
I  went  to  see  the  Secretary  of  War  and  prevailed  upon  him  to  turn 
that  T.  X.  T.  over  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  for  use  in  this 
reclamation  work. 

When  this  war  was  over,  we  had  a  largo  amount  of  explosives 
that  was  dangerous  to  keep  in  storage,  and  the  War  Hoard  de- 
cided, as  I  understand  it.  that  if  there  was  no  use  for  it  the  •-at'- 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  13 

est  thing;  to  do  would  be  to  destroy  it.  When  I  learned  about  that, 
my  thought  was  that  it  could  be  used  in  this  work  and  that  it  would 
be  a  great  industrial  saving.  We  have  some  25,000,000  pounds  which 
was  shipped  to  Wingate,  X.  Mex.,  and  stored  there  for  the  purposes 
of  this  work.  It  is  worth  40  cents  per  pound,  but  will  cost  the 
Reclamation  Service  only  about  4  cents  per  pound.  They  have  a  lot 
of  tractors  and  other  thing  that  we  need. 

Mr.  MOXDELL.  Leaving  that  provision  out  of  the  bill  would  not 
prevent  taking  over  material,  because  the  general  provision  of  law 
to  which  I  have  referred  will  provide  for  this  agency  as  well  as  all 
other  agencies.  They  can  take  over  that  material  and  it  can  be 
turned  over  to  the  Reclamation  Service,  the  Forest  Service,  and  all 
other  services  of  the  Government.  My  thought  was  simply  this, 
that  we  should  not  in  this  bill  take  over  some  Government  property 
without  paying  some  sort  of  price  for  it.  If  that  stuff  is  worth 
only  4  cents  per  pound,  let  us  give  the  War  Department  the  bene- 
fit of  that  4  cents.  They  are  entitled  to  their  salvage,  no  matter  howy 
small  it  is,  and  we  are  entitled  to  buy  it  at  the  salvage  price.  If  we 
are  going  to  conduct  a  businesslike  enterprise,  I  do  not  want  to 
see  anv  tractors  or  other  material  turned  over  to  the  Reclamation 
Service  gratis.  If  they  are  worth  $10,  $20,  $50,  or  $100  or  a  thou- 
sand dollars,  let  up  pay  it  just  as  the  other  agencies  will  have  to  pay. 

Mr.  RAKER.  This  is  "the  thing  that  appealed  to  me ;  I  know  from 
personal  observation  that  the  War  Department  in  England  is  dis- 
posing of  what  we  have  there  in  a  splendid  manner,  but  in  France  it 
is  a  question  of  whether  we  shall  get  anything  for  our  expenditures. 
They  will  not  respect  us  and  will  not  think  as  much  of  us  if  we  turn 
it  over  to  them  for  nothing.  That  property  had  better  be  returned 
here  for  use  rather  than  give  it  away,  and  my  idea  was  to  take  the 
matter  up  with  the  War  Department  so  that  if  they  can  not  dispose  of 
the  material  over  there,  it  may  be  returned  here  for  use.  .  They  will 
respect  us  more  if  they  are  required  to  pay  for  it.  There  is  a  lot 
of  truck  and  machinery  of  all  kinds,  and  we  ought  not  to  let  it 
go  undisposed  of. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  The  bill  containing  the  general  provision  to  which 
I  have  referred  will  be  considered  in  the  House,  and  you  gentlemen 
can  then  determine  the  matter. 

Mr.  MAYS.  You  have  in  section  2  of  your  bill  a  provision  that  per- 
mits the  Secretary  to  acquire  by  gift,  purchase,  deed  in  trust,  or 
otherwise  the  necessary  lands  for  soldier  settlement  projects,  etc. 
Do  you  wish  to  retain  that  in  the  bill? 

Mr.  MOXDELL.  Well,  I  do  not  suppose  that  anybody  will  give  any- 
thing that  is  tremendously  valuable.  There  may  be  cases  where  there 
are  small  properties  involved  which  would  be  donated,  but  I  do  not 
imagine  that  anybody  will  give  anything  to  this  fund  that  is  very 
valuable.  That  was  in  the  various  bills,  and  I  left  it  in.  I  think 
we  will  get  a  good  deal  of  property  by  deed  of  trust. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Would  this  not  be  open  to  the  objection  that  it  would  be 
in  the  form  of  a  gratuity  to  the  soldier,  as  in  the  case  of  the  transfer 
of  materials  from  the  War  Department?  If  an  individual  desires  to 
contribute  to  the  fund,  I  do  not  imagine  anyone  would  object. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  The  gentlemen  of  the  committee  can  determine  what 
tlip.y  want  to  do  about  that.  I  have  simply  stated  my  view.  My 
thought  is  that  under  the  general  provision  of  law  relative  to  the 


14  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

disposition  of  war  material,  the  various  Government  departments 
will  first  be  furnished  all  they  need  and  all  they  can  use  and  all  they 
demand  at  a  fair  price.  That,  in  my  opinion,  is  the  fairest  provi- 
sion both  for  the  War  Department  and  for  the  other  services.  The 
War  Department  is  entitled  to  salvage  values,  no  matter  how  small 
they  me  be,  because  they  will  help  them  to  make  a  showing.  Of 
course,  it  will  be  a  very  small  price  as  compared  with  the  cost.  For 
instance,  in  the  matter  of  powder  it  will  be  but  a  fraction,  or  perhaps 
not  10  per  cent  of  the  cost.  At  any  event,  we  should  pay  the  salvage 
price  for  it.  I  do  not  think  that  is  vitally  important,  and  I  will  be 
perfectly  content  with  anything  the  committee  does  on  that  subject. 
I  shall  support  the  bill  whatever  you  may  do  in  regard  to  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  is  another  difference  that  may  be  more  ap- 
parent than  real :  The  Ferris  and  other  bills  provide  specifically  for 
a  lien  to  secure  the  repayments,  while  yours  does  not  provide  any, 
unless  it  is  contained  in  the  general  language. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  The  general  language  that  was  drawn  in  reference 
to  repayments  was  drawn  in  the  Interior  Department;  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  I  did  not  think  any  specific  legislation  was  necessary.  I  think 
that  falls  under  the  general  authority  granted  in  section  1. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  The  contract  itself  is  a  lien. 

Mr.  MONDELL,.  The  contract,  of  course,  is  a  lien.  First,  there  is  a 
contract  of  sale  which  is  a  lien.  Then  when  you  come  to  the  improve- 
ments there  is  a  mortgage.  Then  when  you  come  to  the  matter  of  the 
personal  property,  whatever  the  Government  has  advanced  is  secured 
by  property  of  more  value,  I  doubt  if  any  specific  language  is  neces- 
sary to  accomplish  that,  but  the  gentlemen  of  the  Interior  Depart- 
ment thought  it  was,  and  it  is  in  the  bill. 

Mr.  TILLMAN.  You  favor  the  retention  of  a  lien,  of  course. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  There  must  be,  of  Bourse,  a  lien.  In  other  wrords, 
we  must  carry  on  this  work  in  a  businesslike;  way. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Section  9  of  your  bill  provides  for  cooperation 
with  the  State  and  the  taking  over  of  a  project  by  the  State  in  some 
Avay.  I  should  like  to  haAre  you  expatiate  on  that. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Let  me  say  to  the  committee  that  that  is  a  matter 
I  have  not  given  as  much  study  to  as  some  others,  but  my  thought 
was  this :  This  bill  does  not  create  a  revolving  fund.  Whatever  you 
make  available  for  appropriation  under  the  bill,  whether  it  is  the 
sum  mentioned  in  the  bill  or  a  larger  or  smaller  sum,  it  Avould  be 
expected  to  be  the  limit  of  Federal  obligation  under  this  class  ot 
work,  I  think  it  is  a  reasonable  expectation,  that  during  the  period 
of  this  Federal  development  the  States  and  private  individuals 
Avould  take  up  this  class  of  work,  particularly  the  States.  Quite  a 
number  of  the  States  have  already  taken  up  the  matter  and  in  one 
way  or  another  have  evidenced  their  interest  and  made  provision  for 
more  or  less  cooperation.  I  have  in  mind  the  State  of  Arkansas 
Avhose  offer  of  cooperation  I  saw  just  a  day  or  two  ago.  In  order  to 
encourage  that  sort  of  cooperation  it  Avould  be  well  to  make  some  pro- 
vision under  which,  in  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary,  under  given 
circumstances,  the  State  might  cooperate  at  least  in  the  management. 
I  want  to  say  to  the  committee  frankly  that  so  far  as  that  paragraph 
is  concerned,  while  I  think  it  is  tremendously  important,  one  of  the 
most  important  features  of  the  bill,  I  do  not  pretend  to  say  that  I  ho 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  15 

(provision   we  have  made   is  just  the  exact  provision   you   should 
make. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Your  intention  is,  is  it  not,  that  all  the  money  the 
Government  advances  eventually  will  come  back  into  the  Treasury  ? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  if  Congress  sees  fit  and  the  projects  are  a  suc- 
•cess,  as  we  feel  quite  satisfied  they  will  be,  money  can  be  reappro- 
priated  for  additional  work  if  Congress  so  desires. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Of  course  it  will  be  up  to  the  future  Congresses  to 
say  what  will  be  done.  It  seemed  to  be  the  opinion  of  practically 
everyone  that  we  should  not  now  create  a  revolving  fund,  but  that 
we  should  dedicate  a  certain  sum  which  we  believed  would  be  suffi- 
cient to  carry  out  the  projects  that  now  seem  available  in  the  States 
and  complete  them.  Xone  of  us  can  look  into  the  future.  It  may 
be  that  this  work  will  be  carried  on  so  successfully,  will  be  so  helpful 
and  so  useful  in  development,  that  the  Federal  Government  may  want 
to  carry  it  on.  We  feel  very  confident  that  in  any  event,  whether  we 
are  particularly  successful  or  not,  the  States  will  take  the  matter  up, 
and  that  individuals  will,  and  that  the  work  that  is  done  under  the 
Federal  Government  organization  will  be  helpful  as  pointing  the 
way  to  do  those  things  that  are  wise  and  possibly  erecting  a  sign- 
post against  taking  the  roads  that  lead  to  trouble  and  difficulty. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Mondell,  there  is  another  matter  I  wrish  you 
would  explain  for  the  benefit,  particularly,  of  the  new  members. 

Your  bill  in  section  10  provides  for  an  authorization.  I  wish  you 
would  explain  the  difference  between  an  authorization  and  an  ap- 
propriation. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Well,  I  suppose  we  all  understand  that  this  is  not 
an  appropriating  committee  and  that  therefore  you  can  not  appro- 
priate moneys.  You  can  authorize  the  appropriation  of  moneys. 
If  this  bill  passes,  it  will  then  be  the  duty  of  the  Committee  on 
Appropriations,  under  estimate  presented  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  through  the  Treasury  Department,  to  make  the  initial  ap- 
propriation in  the  amount  deemed  necessary  for  carrying  on  the  first 
year's  work. 

M.  ELSTON.  In  other  words,  Mr.  Mondell,  although  this  is  an 
authorization  for  $500,000,000  the  first  appropriation  for  this  cur- 
rent year  need  not  necessarily  be  the  full  amount ;  it  might  be  much 
less. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  My  thought  is  at  this  time,  and  I  do  not  make  that 
suggestion  as  at  all  conclusive  or  as  intended  to  bind  anybody j  that 
$100.000,000  or  $125,000,000  at  the  most,  is  all  that  could  be  economi- 
cally expended  within  a  year.  It  may  be  that  the  department  by 
the  time  the  bill  passes  may  have  worked  out  plans  to  the  point  where 
they  may  conclude  they  could  use  a  larger  sum  advantageously  or 
they  may  conclude  they  will  need  a  lesser  amount  the  first  year. 
Manifestly,  it  would  not  be  wise  to  appropriate  an  enormous  sum 
of  money  and  go  to  spending  it  recklessly.  The  success  of  this  enter- 
prise depends  upon  its  being  carried  out  in  a  business-like  way.  If 
we  are  going  to  do  anything  that  is  worth  while,  if  we  are  going  to 
help  the  soldiers  to  get  property  and  to  get  a  farm  and  a  farm  home, 
and  retain  his  self-respect  in  getting  it,  this  entire  matter  must  be 
carried  out  in  a  thoroughly  business-like  way. 
133319—19 2 


16  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  BAER.  Right  there,  Mr.  Mondell,  do  you  not  think  in  order 
to  carry  it  out  in  that  way.  and  inasmuch  as  we  have  found  that  many 
appropriations  have  not  been  carried  out  in  the  past  in  a  very  busi- 
ness-like way,  some  commission  or  board  composed  of  engineers  and 
actual  business  men  should  be  appointed  to  supervise  the  expenditure 
pf  this  money? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  My  thought  is  that  it  is  true  that  mistakes  may  be 
made;  it  is  true  that  some  mistakes  are  inevitable,  but  we  must  in 
all  these  things  trust  some  one,  and  personally,  I  would  rather 
trust  one  man — that  is,  make  him  responsible — than  to  trust  a  board 
so  constituted  that  each  could  swear  the  failure  off  onto  the  other. 
I  would  rather  hold  the  Secretary  responsible.  While  this  bill  does 
not  specifically  place  this  work  under  the  Reclamation  Service,  as 
some  of  the  bills  did,  my  understanding  is,  and  I  think  there  is  no 
doubt  about  it,  the  work  will  be  inaugurated  under  the  Reclamation 
Service  and  under  its  organization.  What  it  may  be  wise  to  do 
after  the  work  is  started  and  under  way  is.  of  course,  another  mat- 
ter, and  it  is  in  view  of  the  possibility  of  the  development  of  a  situa- 
tion rendering  it  wise  to  separate  the  services  that  this  bill  does  not 
specifically  limit  the  operation  to  the  organization  of  the  Reclama- 
tion Service. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Mondell,  there  has  been  a  matter  which  I  have 
had  in  my  mind  now  for  some  months.  In  the  bill  which  I  intro- 
duced, H.  R.  415,  which  is  practically  the  same  as  the  others,  there 
is  this  provision : 

The  Secretary  may  make  appropriate  regulations  "s  1(l  <!'*'  area  obtainable 
by  individual  applicants  as  to  residence  and  actual  cultivation. 

In  your  bill,  in  section  5,  there  is  this  language : 

The  Secretary  shall  make  regulations  general  in  character,  or  applicable 
to  specific  projects,  as  to  residence  and  cultivation  with  a  view  of  carrying 
out  the  purpose  of  making  the  soldier  settlements  the  permanent  home  of  the 
soldier  purchasers. 

I  would  like  to  know  your  views  on  this  question  and  I  would  like 
to  get  them  fully  before  the  committee  so  they  may  be  discussed  when 
the  Secretary  and  others  come  before  the  committee;  and  that  is, 
whether  or  not  it  is  the  intent  of  this  language  to  allow  the  Secretary 
to  fix  the  question  of  whether  there  should  be  actual  residence  upon 
each  tract  of  land  or  whether  that  is  to  be  in  his  discretion. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  There  was  a  good  deal  of  discussion  of  that.  Mr. 
Raker,  and  it  is  a  matter  with  regard  to  which,  as  you  realize,  there 
is  room  for  a  very  great  deal  of  difference  of  opinion.  Some  of  the 
bills  have  specifically  provided  for  a  certain  amount  of  residence, 
either  by  provision  in  the  bill  or  by  reference  to  the  homestead  laws. 
My  thought  was  that  these  projects  will  be  all  the  way  from  Florida 
to  Maine,  and  from  Xorth  Dakota  to  Arizona.  Conditions  will  be 
tremendously  diversified.  A  residence  provision  applicable  to  the 
Northwest  in  which  the  homestead  lands  lie  might  not  be  applicable 
to  a  situation  in  Mississippi  or  Georgia,  where  a  requirement  of 
residence  at  one  period  of  the1  year  might  be  wise  rather  than  resi- 
dence of  a  certain  number  of  months  within  the  year.  There  might 
be  projects  where  the  requirement  of  residence  could  be  shorter  than 
at  other  places.  A  man  in  the  Northwest  can  only  raise  one  crop 
and  there  are  circumstances  under  which  it  is  just  as  well  for  him  to 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  17 

be  away  for  a  considerable  part  of  the  time.  On  the  other  hand, 
in  the  case  of  a  project  in  the  South,  if  it  is  to  be  successful  at  all, 
the  man  must  be  there  during  all  the  growing  season.  There  might 
be  a  difference  of  opinion.  What  I  have  done  is  this — and  I  leave 
it  to  the  judgment  of  you  gentlemen  to  determine  as  you  see  fit — 
to  declare  the  purpose  that  of  making  the  soldier  settlement  the 
permanent  home  of  the  soldier  purchasers.  Under  that  declaration, 
within  his  discretion,  the  Secretary  may  make  regulations  which 
may  be  general  or  specific. 

Mr.  KAKER.  What  I  want  to  do  is  to  get  your  view  on  the  mat- 
ter, and  later  the  view  of  the  committee,  as  to  whether  you  believe  it 
advisable  under  any  circumstances  to  permit  the  obtaining  of  a  home 
under  any  of  these  projects  and  then  permit  regulations  to  be  pro- 
mulgated or  authority  to  be  extended  by  the  Secretary  of  the  In- 
terior, whereby  the  homesteader — and  that  is  what  I  want  to  call 
him — could  live  in  a  town  and  not  live  upon  his  farm  or  home ;  that 
is.  not  make  his  home  his  permanent  place  of  abode.  Before  the 
committee  gets  through  I  want  to  be  heard  on  that  subject,  because, 
while  you  may  not  all  agree  with  me,  my  view  on  the  matter  has 
been  entirely  changed  in  the  last  two  months.  Our  form  of  living 
in  the  United  States  is  different  in  reference  to  this  community  home 
business,  and  while  I  have  heard  the  statements  of  the  Secretary 
and  the  rest,  from  personal  observation  I  want  to  give  my  views 
upon  the  effect  it  will  have  upon  this  country  to  establish  com- 
munity centers  and  permit  these  men  to  have  their  homes  in  the 
community  and  then  have  their  farms  outside,  and  I  want  to  get  Mr. 
MondelFs  views  on  the  question  of  whether  or  not  he  believes  that 
each  homesteader,  under  this  law.  should  maintain  for  some  length 
of  time,  at  least,  a  residence  and  have  his  house  and  his  surrounding 
equipment  upon  his  own  farm,  rather  than  permit  him  to  obtain  a 
residence  in  the  city  and  then  farm  his  land  from  that  point.  I  want 
to  get  that  fully  before  the  committee. 

Mi-.  MOXDELL.  I  am  glad  the  gentleman  called  attention  to  that,  be- 
cause that  is  exactly  one  of  the  things  I  had  in  mind  in  drafting  the 
language  of  this  provision,  and  if  you  will  note  the  language,  you 
will  see  it  authorizes  the  soldier  to  live  anywhere  in  the  settlement. 
The  thought  is  that  the  Secretary  shall  require  the  soldier  to  live  in 
the  settlement.  My  thought  is  that  in  the  development  of  these  set- 
tlements the  soldier  whose  land  is  adjacent  to  the  community  center 
may  desire  to  live  in  the  community  center.  That  is  a  very  common 
mode  of  life  in  Europe,  and  we  have  had  it  illustrated  in  our  own 
country  very  largely  in  the  West  in  the  Mormon  settlements,  where 
it  has  tended  to  develop  a  desirable  rural  life. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  the  point. 

Mr.  MOXDELL.  The  purpose  is  to  make  the  soldier  settlement  the 
permanent  home  of  the  soldier. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  know  I  am  opposed — 

Mr.  MOXDELL.  And  I  would  confine  him  to  the  soldier  settlement, 
but  I  would  not  necessarily  confine  him  to  the  particular  piece  of 
land  that  he  bought.  Under  this  language  the  Secretary  may  make 
such  provision  as  he  sees  fit.  requiring  a  residence  in  the  settlement 
for  a  certain  number  of  months  each  year. 


18  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  EAKER.  in  order  that  the  committee  will  keep  their  minds 
open  on  that  question,  I  should  like  to  present  some  matters  on  that 
point,  and  I  hope  they  will  be  fairly  considered,  so  that  we  do  not 
adopt  the  old  world  theory,  because  after  an  observation  of  this 
matter,  where  they  have  been  living  in  that  way  for  2,000  years,  you 
will  find  that  we  have  advanced  1,000  per  cent  over  them  where  in 
this  country  they  have  had  separate  homes,  in  comparison  with  the 
community  settlements  in  Italy  and  in  France.  I  just  want  to  make 
some  observations  on  that  before  the  question  is  settled,  and  before 
we  make  up  our  minds  definitely  on  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Mondell,  I  should  like  to  call  your  attention 
to  lines  3  and  4  in  section  1.  I  suppose  that  language  was  put  in 
there  advisedly  and  with  reference  to  its  technical  meaning.  I  wish 
you  would  explain  just  how  comprehensive  or  elastic  that  language, 
is,  "Those  who  have  served  with  the  military  or  naval  forces  of  the 
United  States." 

Mr.  Smith  has  just  called  to  rny  attention  that  it  would  not  include 
the  boys  who  served  on  the  border  during  the  Mexican  trouble,  and 
I  should  like  to  know  how  comprehensive  that  language  is. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  This  bill  as  it  stands  now  would  include  every  in- 
dividual man  or  woman  who  served  in  any  capacity  in  or  with  the 
armed  forces  of  the  United  States  in  connection  with  the  war  with 
the  Imperial  German  Government.  It  would  include  the  nurses  who 
enlisted.  It  would  include  the  yeomanettes.  if  they  were  enlisted,  it 
would  include  any  one  who  served  with  the  armed  forces  in  connec- 
tion with  the  war  with  Germany.  If  you  want  to  go  further  than 
that  you  will  have  to  broaden  the  language. 

Mr.  EAKER.  Would  that  include  all  those  who  served  in  the  Xavy, 
whether  they  went  abroad  or  not? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Yes.  There  are  some  folks  who  think  you  never 
include  everybody  unless  you  name  everybody,  and  if  you  start  in 
naming  all  the  different  forces  you  will  never  reach  the  end  of  it, 
because  you  will  alwavs  find  some  fellow  who  thinks  of  somebody 
who  is  not  named.  The  military  and  naval  forces  of  the  United 
States  includes  everybody  who  served  in  an  enlisted  way  or  under 
commission. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  must  be  "  in  an  enlisted  way." 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Yes;  or  commissioned;  he  must  have  actually  been 
in  the  service. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Mr.  Mondell.  why  do  you  want  to  limit  this  legislation 
to  those  who  were  engaged  with  the  Military  or  Xaval  Establish- 
ments since  we  declared  war  and  up  to  the  present  time?  What 
about  the  boys  who  went  on  the  Mexican  border?  Hundreds  went 
'down  there  and  were  discharged  probably  a  day  or  so  before  war 
was  declared,  yet  they  were  down  there  for  six  or  eight  months ;  and 
what  about  the  Spanish-American  War  men  ? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Mr.  Smith,  if  you  will  allow  me,  I  do  not  want  to 
argue  that  question,  but  I  will  leave  that  to  the  judgment  of  the 
committee.  I  have  told  the  committee  what  I  did  and  what  T  thought 
about  it.  The  bill  as  I  originally  drafted  it  would  have  included 
everybody  who  served  in  any  of  our  wars,  a  revolutionary  hero,  it' 
he  was  still  on  earth;  but  I  did  not  believe  it  was  wise  to  do  it:  I 
simply  adopted  language  that  had  been  used,  and  after  I  got  to  dis- 
cussing the  matter  with  some  gentlemen  they  said,  "The  men  who 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  19 

have  used  the  broad  language  have  not  intended,  in  our  opinion,  to 
include  anybody  except  the  soldiers  of  the  Great  War,  and  this  in- 
cludes all  who  served  in  the  Great  War."  If  you  want  to  go  beyond 
that  and  take  in  men  who  served  before  the  Great  War.  and  men 
who  served  in  the  Spanish-American  War,  and  here  and  there  and 
elsewhere,  you  will  have  to  amend  the  bill-. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Suppose  a  man  came  from  California  and  was  drafted 
and  sent  into  a  cantonment,  and  was  there  three  months  and  became 
sick  and  could  not  be  sent  abroad,  and  then  the  armistice  came  along 
and  he  was  discharged;  would  he  be  covered  by  this  language? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  How  would  you  describe  him  if  you  did  not  de- 
scribe him  in  this  way.  He  went  into  the  service,  and  it  does  not 
make  any  difference  if  he  did  not  serve  but  three  minutes;  if  he 
enlisted  and  was  discharged  honorably  he  is  included,  and  it  does 
not  make  any  difference  w^here  it  was. 

Mr.  BAKU.  That  word  "  enlisted  "  is  a  bad  word  there. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  I  would  like  you  to  explain,  Mr.  Mondell,  a  little 
more  fully  the  question  of  cooperation  by  the  States  in  this  matter. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  If  you  will  allow  me,  there  are  a  number  of  gen- 
tlemen here  who  can  do  that  very  much  better  than  I  can.  While  I 
have  some  general  views  on  the  subject  and  believe  very  strongly 
as  to  the  importance  of  it,  and  realize  how  anxious  the  States  are 
to  do  it,  so  far  as  the  details  of  that  sort  of  thing  are  concerned, 
there  are  many  gentlemen  who  can  inform  you  and  enlighten  you  in 
regard  to  that  better  than  1  can.  I  do  not  believe  I  am  particularly 
an  expert  along  that  line,  if  I  am  in  any. 

Mr.  BAKER.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  another  question  as  to  who 
are  included  in  this  language.  The  rest,  of  course,  I  presume  un- 
derstand this,  but  I  do  not,  and  it  never  does  any  harm  to  fully  an- 
swer these  questions.  Would  this  include  a  man  who  enlisted  in 
the  naval  service  and  was  in  there  say  a  month  and  was  then  dis- 
charged ? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  If  he  was  honorably  discharged  or  separated. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Yes;  or  a  man  who  was  separated  from  the  service. 
That  means  a  man  who  resigned,  an  officer.  These  bills  contained 
all  sorts  and  kinds  of  descriptions  and  the  thought  was  to  secure  a 
description  that  was  brief  and  definite  and  all  inclusive. 

Mr.  RAKER.  This  would  then  include  the  yeomenettes,  the  young 
ladies  W7ho  entered  the  service  and  served  from  one  month  to  two 
years,  if  they  desired  to  take  advantage  of  it. 

Mi\  MONDELL.  Or  two  minutes  if  she  actually  got  into  the  service 
and  was  honorably  separated  or  discharged. 

Mr.  TILLMAN.  You  have  followed  the  plan  pursued  in  legal  plead- 
ings, that  by  being  comprehensive  you  thereby  embrace  all  the  various, 
elements. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Yes.  We  found  that  if  we  tried  to  detail  them 
there  was  always  somebody  left  out. 

Mr.  RAKER.  If  the  chairman  and  the  committee  will  pardon  me, 
I  would  like  to  ask  another  question  as  to  whom  it  includes.  Does 
it  include  or  would  it  include  the  members  of  the  Salvation  Army? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  No.  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Let  me  finish  my  question,  please.  Or  the  members 
of  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  or  the  members  of  the  Red  Cross,  who  went  across 


20  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

and  went  to  the  front  and  actually  participated  in  doing  this  work, 
some  of  whom  were  killed  in  the  performance  of  their  work. 

Mr:  MONDELL.  It  would  not. 

Mr.  RAKER.  There  is  no  provision  in  this  bill  that  would  include 
them? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  No;  and  no  provision  in  any  other  bill  that  was 
introduced  by  the  gentleman  from  California  or  anybody  else  that 
would  include  them. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Sometimes  I  overlook  my  hand.  Would  there  be  any 
objection,  in  your  mind — 

Mr.  MONDELL  (interposing).  Please  do  not  ask  me  that  question, 
because  I  will  not  answer  it.  I  have  told  you  what  the  bill  does,  and 
I  shall  be  perfectly  satisfied  with  what  the  committee  does,  either  in 
the  way  of  limiting  or  expanding  it.  The  provision  in  the  bill  is 
clear  and  definite.  It  includes  'everybody  that  has  a  record  of 
service  in  the  Great  War,  if  it  is  only  for  one  minute. 

Mr.  HERNANDEZ.  What  about  boys  18,  19,  or  '20  years  of  age  ( 

Mr.  MONDELL.  They  are  included. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  are  a  few  questions  I  should  like  1<>  ask  you 
as  to  the  meaning  of  some  of  this  language :  Under  section  2,  how  far 
is  it  contemplated  that  the  governor  of  a  State  shall  proceed  in  the 
selection  of  a  project?  I  see  that  he  has  something  to  do  with  ap- 
proving the  price. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  As  I  originally  wrote  that  provision — and  I  want 
to  be  very  frank  with  you  gentlemen  in  all  the  processes  of  this 
legislation — as  I  originally  wrote  that  provision,  the  governor  of 
a  State,  or  agent  of  the  governor  of  a  State,  would  have  the  right  to 
pass  on  the  suitability  as  well  as  the  price  of  lands:  but  after  a  con- 
siderable amount  of  discussion,  and  for  reasons  which  other  gentle- 
men can  elaborate  on  perhaps  better  than  I  can,  it  was  agreed — 
although  I  admit  that  I  was  not  absolutely  persuaded — that,  perhaps, 
in  view  of  all  the  conditions  that  might  arise,  it  would  be  better  to 
limit  the  authority  of  the  State  in  the  matter  of  the  price.  That  is 
a  matter  which  the  committee,  of  course,  must  consider. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  think,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  when  this  matter  first 
came  up  there  were  a  lot  of  projects  in  the  various  States,  and  a 
rush  to  get  options,  and  things  of  that  kind.  There  was  an  impres- 
sion, which  injured  us  in  Congress,  that  it  was  liable  to  be  a  real 
estate  job,  and  things  of  that  kind  that  would  tend  to  bring  the 
matter  into  disrepute.  For  that  reason  we  thought  it  1  tetter  to 
obviate  as  far  as  possible  any  thought  that  Uncle  Sam  was  liable 
to  be  swindled  or  that  any  undue  rake-off  or  anything  of  that  kind 
could  be  had. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  know  that  you  have  a  particular  reason  for 
putting  in  the  language  of  section  6,  providing  that  the  price  fixed 
for  each  farm,  tract,  or  lot  shall  represent  as  nearly  as  practicable 
its  relative  and  comparative  selling  value.  I  wish  you  would  explain 
that. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  That  particular  language  has  been  pawed  over 
quite  a  bil.  I  have  had  some  difficulty  in  persuading  some  gentlemen 
that  that  \vas  the  way  to  state  it.  and  I  do  not  know  that  all  of  those 
with  whom  I  have  discussed  the  matter  are  now  fully  in  agreement 
with  me.  in  regard  to  it;  but,  as  I  explained  a  moment  ago,  in  fixing 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  21 

the  value  of  a  lot  or  farm,  or  of  a  farm  worker's  tract,  it  is  neces- 
sary, first,  to  have  in  mind  the  total  cost  of  the  project,  because  our 
purpose  is  to  return  the  total  cost  of  the  project.  There  are  so  many 
acres  of  land  that  must  produce  a  certain  sum,  that  sum  being  the 
sum  total  of  the  cost  of  the  project.  Manifestly,  it  would  not  be 
equitable  or  just  or  wise  to  lay  a  flat  price  of  so  much  per  acre  on 
all  of  this  land.  In  the  first  place,  you  will  have  town  lots,  and  you 
will  have  those  small  workers'  plats  or  tracts  which  will  be  near  your 
community  centers,  and,  therefore,  quite  valuable  per  acre.  Then, 
there  will  be  the  farms  near  the  center;  there  will  be  the  farms  on 
the  main  road,  because  under  this  bill  the  Secretary  can  build  roads 
and  it  will  be  necessary  for  him  to  build  certain  roads.  It  will  be 
necessary  for  him  to  lay  out  all  the  roads,  and  then  improve  such 
as  are  necessary  for  the  early  development  of  the  projects.  There- 
fore, a  farm  beautifully  situated  near  the  community  center  or  on 
the  main  highway,  would  have  a  very  much  greater  selling  value  per 
acre  than  a  farm  at  some  distance,  with  possibly  not  so  good  soil  and 
possibly  not  quite  so  smooth,  and  in  many  respects  less  desirable. 

There  are  plenty  of  men  who  would  be  quite  as  content  to  take 
the  tracts  that  are  not  centrally  located,  because  that  land  would 
sell  at  a  lower  price.  Fortunately  for  us,  there  is  a  great  variety  of 
taste  among  men,  and  if  wo  fix  the  price  on  the  relative  or  compara- 
tive value,  we  shall  find  a  purchaser  for  every  tract,  if  those  prices 
are  wisely  fixed.  Now,  as  to  this  language,  I  wrote  that  paragraph 
several  times  before  I  was  satisfied  with  it,  and  then  I  had  some 
difficult}'  in  persuading  gentlemen  that  it  ought  to  stand,  and,  as  I 
said  before,  I  do  not  know  whether  they  are  entirely  persuaded,  or 
not.  It  is  the  relative  value  as  related  to  the  cost  of  the  whole  project, 
and  the  comparative  value  as  compared  with  other  units  of  the 
project.  Xow.  if  any  gentleman  can  write  that  provision  any  bet- 
ter, I  shall  be  delighted  to  accept  the  language  that  you  may  agree 
upon.  That  is  the  best  I  could  do. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Section  5  provides  that  preference  shall  be  given 
as  between  applicants  with  a  view  of  safeguarding  the  settler  and 
the  United  States.  I  am  referring  to  the  language  of  section  5  in 
lines  21,  22,  and  23.  Does  that  mean  that  the  Secretary  may  reject 
some  applicant  on  account  of  the  moral  risk,  or  in  cases  where  he 
does  not  consider  that  the  applicant  would  make  a  good  farmer? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Yes.  That  leaves  a  very  wide  discretion  in  the 
hands  of  the  Secretary  in  the  selection  of  purchasers. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Would  it  be  your  idea,  from  your  experience  in  the 
West,  that  any  man  should  select,  as  between  two  applicants  because 
of  their  appearance  or  color  of  their  hair,  in  giving  the  right  to 
file  ou  a  homestead  under  this  setlement  act? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  start  out  with  a  preference  in 
favor  of  those  wlio  have  been  employed  in  the  development,  of  these 
projects.  Xow,  I  think  all  of  us  will  agree  that  that  is  a  proper 
preference  and,  of  course,  there  must  be  some  preference  along  that 
line  as  between  men  who  have  been  employed  on  the  projects.  I  pre- 
sume that  would  be  exercised  in  favor  of  the  man  who  had  been  there 
longest ;  or  who,  by  his  constant  application,  had  shown  the  greatest 
interest  in  the  enterprise;  or  who  had  been  most  diligent  and  had 
given  the  best  evidence  of  the  possession  of  those  qualities  that  would 


22  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

make  him  a  happy,  contented,  useful,  and  successful  member  of  that 
community.  My  thought  was  that  the  Secretary  should  grant  the 
preference  how?  With  a  view  of  safeguarding  the  settler  and  the 
United  States — they  being  the  two  parties  in  interest.  There  might 
be  a  case  in  which  it  would  be  as  much  to  the  disadvantage  of  the 
settler  as  it  would  be  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  United  States  to 
allow  a  man  to  take  an  obligation  which,  judging  from  his  past  per- 
formances, he  would  be  unable  to  carry  out  and  fulfill,  and  it  would 
not  be  a  kindness  to  grant  him  that  opportunity.  There  would  be 
other  opportunities,  possibly,  involving  less  risk  and  less  expendi- 
ture, which  that  man  could  avail  himself  of. 

I  think  that  our  experience  with  the  Keclamation  Service  has  proved 
this,  that,  perhaps,  the  one  serious  fault  is  that  there  is  no  discretion 
vested,  with  the  result  that  sometimes  men  acquire  tracts  on  a  shoe- 
string, and  in  the  knowledge  of  the  men  who  take  their  filing,  with- 
out any  real  intent  or  purpose  to  establish  a  permanent  home.  If 
these  things  are  to  be  successful  they  must  not  be  speculative.  The 
Secretary  may  make  mistakes,  and  there  undoubtedly  will  be  mis- 
takes of  judgment  in  these  matters.  That  is  inevitable,  but  if  we 
are  to  be  successful  there  must  be  some  discretion  somewhere  under 
which  we  can  give  the  first  preference  to  the  man  who,  by  his  energy 
and  application,  has  shown  his  good  will  and  his  ability. 

Mr.  BAER.  There  is  one  more  qualification  to  be  considered  and 
that  is  experience.  If  the  applicant  is  a  farmer's  boy  and  has  lived 
on  the  farm  for  years,  he  would  be  more  likely  to  be  a  successful 
farmer  than  some  clerk  in  a  store.  The  trouble  is  that  they  will  try 
to  get  people  who  are  clerks  in  stores  or  banks  who  can  no  more  run 
a  farm  than  a  farmer's  son  can  run  the  First  National  Bank  of  New 
York.  They  are  not  experienced  and  do  not  know  anything  about  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  There  is  a  thing  that  came  up  when  the  matter  was 
considered  originally,  as  to  whether  a  preference  should  be  given  to 
anyone — that  is.  the  question  of  whether  school  teachers,  storekeepers, 
doctors,  and  lawyers,  who  may  not  have  made  any  success  of  their 
business,  might  go  in  and  make  a  success  of  farming. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Ferris  bill  contains  this  provision:  "He  may 
by  general  regulations  impose  conditions  as  to  the  ability  of  the  ap- 
plicants so  as  to  insure  the  United  States  and  the  settler  as  far  as 
possible  against  failure."  I  suppose  that  same  idea  is  incorporated 
in  your  bill  in  different  words  ? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Is  it  contemplated  by  this  provision  that  immoral  or 
vicious  persons  might  make  application? 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  presumption  is  that  no  soldier  would  be  that. 
The  presumption  is  that  the  applicants  will  be  soldiers  who  have 
been  in  the  service. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Of  course,  this  legislation  is  definitely  advanced  in 
favor  of  soldiers.  In  view  of  that,  do  you  think  that  the  provision 
on  page  3  that  the  Secretary  shall,  so^  far  as  possible,  utilize  the 
services  of  soldiers  for  such  purposes,  is  sufficient  to  give  the  sol- 
dier the  preference  right  as  to  employment  as  well  as  the  preference 
right  of  entry?  It  seems  to  me  that  that  language  should  be  more 
specific. 

Mr.  MONDKLL,.  The  language  "  so  far  as  possible  "  is  about  as  strong 
as  you  can  make  it. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  23 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  think  it  should  be  a  preference. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  It  is  more  than  a  preference. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Why  not  make  it  read,  "  The  Secretary  shall,  so  far 
as  possible,  give  the  preference." 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  shall  not  quarrel  with  that,  but  that  would  not 
strengthen  the  provision,  because  when  you  say  that  "  he  shall,  so 
far  as  possible,"  you  put  it  about  as  strongly  as  you  can,  unless  you 
say  that  no  one  else  shall  be  employed.  There  will  be  conditions 
under  which  a  soldier  may  not  be  available,  as,  for  instance,  for  some 
engineering  work,  and  there  may  be  times  when  the  work  is  going 
on  and  can  not  be  suspended  when  it  will  be  necessary  to  employ 
someone  else  because  the  soldiers  may  not  be  available.  I  do  not 
see  how  you  could  make  that  statement  any  stronger,  unless  you 
absolutely  prohibit  him  from  employing  anybody  else. 

Mr.  SMITH.  My  suggestion  was  that  the  Secretary  shall  so  far  as 
he  can  give  preference  to  soldiers  in  the  matter  of  employment. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  You  could  do  that,  but  if  you  did  the  language 
would  not  be  as  strong,  definite,  and  commanding  as  it  is  now. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  now  nearly  12  o'clock,  and  I  understand  that 
several  members  of  the  committee  desire  to  question  Mr.  Mondell 
further  in  the  matter. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  care  to  take  any  further 
time  of  the  committee,  unless  the  committee  desires  it. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Mr.  Chairman,  there  is  one  thing  that  I  would  like 
to  call  attention  to :  A  soldier  came  to  me  yesterday  and  with  bated 
breath  said  that  this  would  not  amount  to  anything  for  the  soldiers, 
because  it  requires  him  to  put  up  one-fourth  of  the  money  for  the 
improvements  and  5  per  cent  of  the  purchase  price  of  the  land. 
He  said  that  for  that  reason,  the  soldiers  being  penniless,  this  will 
be  of  no  value  to  them.  I  did  not  agree  with  him,  but  I  thought  it 
well  to  call  attention  to  it. 

(Thereupon,  at  12  o'clock  noon,  the  committee  adjourned  until  to- 
morrow, Wednesday,  May  28,  1919,  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.) 


COMMITTEE  ON  PUBLIC  LANDS, 

HOUSE  or  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Wednesday,  May  28, 1919. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Nicholas  J.  Sinnott 
(chairman)  presiding. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  FRANK  W.  MONDELL,  A  REPRESENTATIVE 
IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  WYOMING— Resumed. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen,  we  have  with  us  this  morning  Mr. 
Mondell,  and  I  believe  some  of  the  members  of  the  committee  do- 
sired  to  ask  him  further  questions. 

Mr.  UAKEK.  Mr.  Chairman,' there  is  one  question  in  my  mind  which 
I  have  marked  here,  and  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Mondell  about  it. 
It  is  in  all  of  the  bills  in  practically  the  same  language.  There  is 
one  question  that  has  occurred  to  me,  and  perhaps  to  some  of  the 
others,  and  I  would  like  to  have  his  idea  put  before  the  committee 


24  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

as  to  what  would  be  the  result  of  it.  It  is  on  page  2  of  the  bill,  that 
the  Secretary  is  authorized,  and  so  forth,  and  may  withdraw,  utilize, 
and  dispose  of  by  contract  and  deed  public  lands  suitable  for  such 
purposes.  I  would  like  to  have  you  explain  that  provision,  Mr.  Mon- 
dell,  and  then  I  want  to  ask  you  another  question  in  regard  to  it. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  My  original  draft  of  the  bill  did  not  contain  that 
language.  I  do  not  consider  it  absolutely  essential.  I  think  other 
provisions  of  the  bill  give  the  Secretary 'the  authority  that  is  spe- 
cifically given  him  by  this  language,  but  it  may  be  that  it  is  some- 
what by  inference,  and  therefore  at  the  suggestion  of  a  number  of 
gentlemen,  that  language  was  inserted. 

The  CHAIRMAN  (interposing).  What  language  is  that,  Mr.  Mon- 
dell? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  The  words  on  lines  13  and  14. 

Mr.  RAKEK.  Page  two. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  "Withdraw,  utilize,  and  dispose  of  by  contract  and 
deed  public  lands  suitable  for  such  purposes."  Now,  the  question  of 
withdrawal'  is,  of  course,  somewhat  mooted  as  to  the  authority  of  the 
Secretary;  whether  the  general  authority  granted  under  the  act 
would  authorize  him  to  withdraw;  whether  the  specific  authority 
under  the  withdrawal  act  would  authorize  him  to  withdraw.  Objec- 
tion is  made  to  utilizing  the  authority  under  the  withdrawal  act  be- 
cause of  the  fact  that  such  withdrawals  can  only  be  made  by  the 
President,  and  it  might  be  cumbersome  and  unnecessarily  delay  oper- 
ations to  secure  a  Presidential  proclamation  in  all  cases,  and  there- 
fore I  am  rather  persuaded  that  perhaps  to  make  it  entirely  clear 
and  definite  that  the  Secretary  may  withdraw  for  these  purposes, 
which  means  withdrawing  possibly  more  than  he  intends  to  abso- 
lutely utilize,  which  would  include  withdrawal  with  a  view  to  de- 
termining whether  or  not  he  would  utilize  the  land,  and  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  the  authority  may  not  exist  in  the  general  land  statutes  or 
in  this  bill  by  direct  inference,  it  may  be  that  that  language  is  neces- 
sary. I  personally  somewhat  hesitate  about  inserting  specific  author- 
ity to  withdraw  our  lands  for  fear  of  the  abuses  that  have  sometimes 
arisen  under  authority  to  withdraw.  Withdrawals  are  sometimes 
made  without  careful  consideration  of  areas  that  can  not  be  utilized, 
and  in  some  cases  they  have  interfered  with  other  settlements  and 
development, 

In  this  matter,  as  in  all  others,  we  of  course  must  depend  upon 
the  good  judgment  of  the  Secretary.  Have  you  anything  further 
under  that? 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  idea  in  my  mind,  and  the  idea  I  wanted  to  put 
before  the  committee,  was  whether  or  not  this  authorization  would 
be  broad  enough  and  extensive  enough,  in  fact,  to  permit  the  Sec- 
retary to  withdraw  all  the  remaining  public  domain,  if  he  wanted 
to,  either  temporarily  or  permanently. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Of  course,  in  order  to  do  that,  it  would  be  necessary 
for  the  Secretary  to  make  up  his  mind  that  he  intended  to  utilize 
all  the  remaining  public  domain  for  this  purpose.  Of  course,  it 
is  optional  with  him,  but  his  acts  must  be  based  on  the  purposes 
and  intent  of  this  legislation,  and  it  is  to  be  assumed,  of  course,  that 
he  will  not  withdraw  except  where  he  has  very  excellent  reasons 
or  very  good  reasons  to  believe  that  the  lands  will  be  utilized  for 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  25 

this  purpose,  and  of  course,  we  must  assume  that  after  proper  ex- 
amination which  we  hope  would  be  reasonably  prompt,  such  lands 
as  are  not  to  be  utilized  will  be  restored.  This  committee  it  just  as 
familiar — the  older  members  of  it,  at  least — with  that  whole  situa- 
tion, as  I  am.  There  is  nothing  I  can  suggest  to  the  gentleman  on 
my  left  and  right,  the  present  chairman  of  this  committee  or  the 
former  chairman  of  the  committee  in  regard  to  withdrawals  that 
they  do  not  know  all  about,  so  I  shall,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  as 
an  individual,  be  entirely  content  with  the  judgment  of  the  commit- 
tee in  regard  to  that  matter. 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  language  of  the  bill,  415,.  which  is  like  the  bill 
of  Mr.  Ferris  and  Mr.  Taylor,  reads  as  follows,  and  I  wanted  your 
suggestion  on  it,  on  page  2,  line  16,  of  the  bill:  "The  Secretary  may 
withdraw,  utilize  and  in  like  manner  with  other  lands  acquired  here- 
under,  dispose  of  portions  of  the  public  lands  of  the  United  States 
required  to  carry  out  the  purposes  of  this  act,"  and  so  forth. 

Mr.  MOXDELL.  I  do  not  think  you  would  want  to  use  the  words 
you  use  there,  "in  like  manner."  I  think  after  considering  that 
matter  you  would  conclude  that  that  was  not  appropriate  language, 
because  you  do  not  dispose  of  those  lands  in  like  manner.  You  dis- 
pose of  them  in  like  manner  so  far  as  the  fixing  of  prices  is  con- 
cerned, but  it  is  different  between  the  disposition  of  the  public  do- 
main and  the  disposition  of  the  privately  owned  lands,  and  unless 
you  change  this  bill,  the  disposition  of  the  public  domain  portion 
of  the  lands  utilized  would  be  through  the  Commissioner  of  the 
General  Land  Office. 

Mr  RAKER.  Then  it  is  your  idea,  Mr.  Mondell,  and  I  know  you 
have  given  this  subject  a  great  deal  of  consideration,  because  you 
were  at  one  time  chairman  of  this  committee  and  you  have  also 
been  before  the  committee  many  times,  and  have  given  much  con- 
sideration to  it  in  the  House,  that  this  withdrawal  feature  unless 
it  was  abused  would  relate  solely  to  lands  to  carry  out  the  provi- 
sions of  this  act ;  in  other  words,  lands  to  be  used  for  soldiers  under 
the  provisions  of  this  act,  and  if  there  was  a  general  withdrawal 
it  would  practically  be  an  abuse  of  it,  and  we.  would  not  expect  that 
from  any  official. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  That  is  my  view  of  it;  that  this  language  could 
not  be  properly  construed  to  justify  any  withdrawal  except  for  the 
purpose  of  examination  with  a  view  to  utilizing  the  land  under 
this  law,  in  which  event  good  practice  and  good  administration 
would  demand  an  immediate  return  to  the  public  domain  of  such 
lands  a?  were  not  found,  and  found  promptly,  to  be  useful  for  these 
purposes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then  under  this  bill  the  withdrawal  of  it  at  any  time 
for  car  lying  out  the  purposes  of  the  act  or  for  examination  to  find 
out  whether  it  was  necessary  or  proper,  would  be  within  the  power 
of  the  Secretary,  and  he  could  return  it  to  the  public  domain  at  any 
time  he  saw  fit  without  investigation. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Entirely. 

Mr.  RAKER.  One  other  question.  There  was  in  the  former  bill 
considered  by  Mr.  Taylors  committee  language  somewhat  similar 
to  this  relative  to  a  patent  or  deed.  The  committee  after  considerable 
'consideration  struck  out  the  word  deed  because  it  is  not  used  in  the 


28  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Land  Department  and  used  the  word  "  patent/'  Do  you  not  believe, 
whichever  way  it  is  reported,  we  ought  to  stand  on  the  word  "  pat- 
ent'' and  not  inclure  or  make  any  authorization  for  a  deed,  but 
stand  on  the  law  relative  to  "patent"? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  in  this  particular  con- 
nection perhaps  the  word  "  patent "  is  preferable  to  the  word  "  deed." 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Mondell,  in  section  4  it  is  provided  that  dedi- 
cation may  be  made  for  community  centers,  and  then  in  the  line 
below,  line  15,  there  is  the  language,  u  Town  sites  suitable  for  the  pur- 
poses of  the  projects  may  be  established."  I  was  wondering  what 
distinction  you  had  in  mind  between  a  community  center  and  a  town 
site. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Well,  this  would  be  the  procedure  as  it  is  in  my 
mind.  The  first  provision  is  that  dedication  may  be  made  for 
schools.  Now,  that  might  be  for  a  district  .school,  where  a  dedication 
of  an  acre,  or  half  an  acre,  or  two  acres  might  be  made,  without  re- 
gard to  a  town  site  or  any  special  center  for  the  accommodation  of 
the  immediate  neighborhood;  an  ordinary  dedication  such  as  we 
have  on  the  public  domain  generally  for  district  or  local  school- 
houses.  Dedications  for  churches  might  in  some  cases  be  made  under 
the  same  conditions  for  a  neighborhood  church:  dedication  might  be 
made  for  a  community  center  without  the  establishment  of  a  town. 
In  other  words,  a  tract  might  be  dedicated  to  the  public  for  a  com- 
munity center  adjacent  to  a  schoolhouse  or  adjacent  to  a  schoolhouse 
and  church  site.  In  other  words,  you  might  have  a  community  cen- 
ter that  was  not  a  town ;  that  was  not  laid  out  as  a  town  site. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  A  community  center  as  distinguished  from  a 
municipal  corporation  ? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  TILLMAN.  It  might  be  a  sort  of  place  for  holding  county  fairs 
or  just  a  schoolhouse. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  There  are  a  variety  of  purposes  that  will  occur  to 
the  minds  of  you  gentlemen  for  which  community  centers  could  be 
used;  community  centers,  as  distinguished  from"  towns,  and  that 
paragraph  is  intended  to  cover  that  situation.  However,  that  para- 
graph also  applies  to  the  towns,  because  those  dedications  for  com- 
munity centers,  for  churches,  and  for  schools,  may  be  made  in  the 
towns.  This  paragraph  relates  entirely  to  dedications  for  public 
purposes,  and  such  dedications  might  be  in  connection  with  a  town 
or  they  might  be  entirely  separate  and  apart  from  a  town. 

The  next  paragraph  relates  to  the  establishment  of  towns  within 
which  the  dedications  provided  for  in  the  preceding  paragraph  might 
be  made. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Mondell,  have  you  considered  the  matter  of 
yearly  estimates  for  appropriations  like  we  have  under  the  recla- 
mation law? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  suggest  right  here  that  my 
recollection  is  that  before  you  came  in,  a  bill  was  up  in  the  House 
which  contained  the  provisions  of  this  subdivision  you  refer  to,  and 
after  a  couple  of  days'  debate,  in  which,  I  think.  Mr.  Mondell  par- 
ticipated, it  was  defeated  by  the  House,  and  I  wondered  whether  they 
had  changed  their  minds. 

Mr.  MOXDKLL.  AYhat  was  that  bill'' 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  27 

Mr.  RAKER.  A  bill  to  authorize  the  Reclamation  Service  to  do  just 
what  is  provided  here,  and  I  wondered  whether  we  had  changed 
our  views  on  that,  "  town  sites  suitable  for  the  purposes  of  the  project 
may  be  established." 

Mr.  MONDELL.  We  have  such  a  provision  in  the  reclamation  law. 
I  think  the  discussion  the  gentleman  has  in  mind  was  a  discussion 
as  to  the  distribution  of  funds  from  sale  of  town  lots.  An  effort  was 
made  to  secure  for  the  benefit  of  the  towns  the  use  of  a  certain  por- 
tion of  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  the  lots,  and  as  I  recollect,  by  a 
mischance  rather  than  by  direct  intent  of  the  House,  that  was  de- 
feated, as  I  recall  it,  although  my  recollection  is  a  little  hazy.  I 
think  the  gentleman  from  Colorado  perhaps  remembers  about  it. 
There  was  a  little  mix-up  on  it,  and  there  was  a  little  difference  of 
opinion  among  those  who  were  favoring  it  as  to  the  terms,  and  in 
the  midst  of  the  somewhat  of  confusion  of  opinion  the  entire  matter 
was  lost. 

Mr.  RAKER.  May  I  ask  this  further  question,  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Certainly. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Under  this  provision — and  that  part  is  new  in  the  bill, 
and  I  would  like  to  have  your  explanation  of  it  if  I  may — that 
would  authorize  the  complete  development  of  a  townsite,  laying  it 
out  in  lots  and  blocks  and  streets  and  thoroughly  developing  it  just 
as  a  private  individual  would  lay  out  a  townsite,  and  then  sell  the 
lots. 

Mr.  Mo N  DELL.  I  think  so.  I  think  under  that  provision  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Interior  could  subdivide  the  tract  into  lots.  He  could 
set  aside  a  tract  or  tracts  for  schools  and  churches;  he  could  set 
aside  a  tract  for  a  park  or  community  center,  or  whatever  you  may 
call  it,  or  build  roads.  He  could  do  whatever  seemed  to  be  wise  and 
necessary  to  put  that  townsite  in  condition  to  make  it  available  for 
those  who  desired  to  use  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then  the  balance  of  it  could  be  sold  for  commercial 
purposes? 

Mr.  BAER.  I  think  there  is  one  big  suggestion  you  are  overlooking 
in  reference  to  these  townsites  and  community  centers  which  appeals 
to  me.  Elwood  Mead  and  the  different  men  who  propose  the  scheme 
nro  trying  to  combine  science  with  agriculture,  and  they  are  trying 
to  devise  new  and  efficient  methods  of  marketing  the  grain,  and  the 
elevators  and  markets  will  all  be  in  the  community  centers.  That  is 
one  of  the  principles  in  it. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Yes;  and  we  discussed  this  paragraph,  and  all  the 
others  with  Mr.  Mead,  and,  I  think,  I  discussed  this  matter  with  Mr. 
Mead  more  than  any  other  one  individual,  and,  I  think,  in  the  main, 
wejiave  met  his  views. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Mr.  Mondell,  I  notice  sections  6  and  7  contemplate 
contracts  with  the  soldiers,  apparently  reserving  title  in  the  Govern- 
ment for  a  long  period  of  years.  That  would  have  the  effect,  I  take 
it.  of  exempting  these  lands  from  local  taxation  until  a  patent  was 
actually  issued,  as  in  the  case  of  other  public  lands  located  and  occu- 
pied before  patent  is  issued. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Will  the  committee  allow  me  to  interrogate  the 
Director  of  the  Reclamation  Service  in  answer  to  your  question? 
Mr.  Davis,  do  any  of  the  States  attempt  to  tax  the  land  on  projects 


28      .  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

where  the  title  is  still  held  in  the  hands  of  the  Government,  and  do 
they  do  so  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  There  was  such  an  attempt  made  but  it  was  resisted 
by  suit  and  the  court  held  they  had  no  right  to  tax  the  land  but  they 
could  tax  the  improvements. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  They  could  tax  the  improvements  but  not  the  land 
until  the  certificate  had  been  issued? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Until  patent  was  issued ;  yes. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Or  the  certificate  which  was  the  evidence  of  title? 

Mr.  SMITH.  That  does  not  apply  to  Carey  Act  lands. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  does  or  not  because  that  was 
not  involved  in  the  suits. 

Mr.  MONDELL,.  Carey  Act  lands  are  not  Government  lands. 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  title  has  not  passed  from  the  Government. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  suits  did  not  involve  Carey  Act  lands,  and  I  do  not 
know  whether  it  would  include  them  or  not, 

Mr.  MONDELL.  The  title  has  passed  subject  to  compliance  with  cer- 
tain regulations  of  the  State. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  title  does  not  pass  to  the  State  until  the  law  lias 
been  complied  with  in  regard  to  reclamation. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  practice  is  to  tax  the  improve- 
ments. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  imagine  under  this  bill  only  the  improvements 
would  be  taxable  while  the  title  is  in  the  Government,  I  asked  Mr. 
Davis  that  question  in  order  that  we  might  know  in  regard  to  what 
had  developed  on  the  reclamation  projects  where  similar  conditions 
exist. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Take  the  case  of  a  large  tract,  say  of  100.000  acres, 
which  was  in  private  ownership  and  subject  to  taxation,  and  had  been 
taxed,  and  was  transferred  to  the  Government  for  carrying  out  these 
projects.  It  would  not  be  taxed  after  the  Government  got  title,  and 
this  would  simply  withdraw  that  land  from  taxation  during  the  time 
of  the  work  by  the  Government.  Would  that  be  your  view,  Mr. 
Mondell? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  The  gentleman  from  California  is  a  lawyer  and  I 
am  not.  I  doubt  if  the  lands  could  be  taxed. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  I  think  our  statutes  out  there  provide  that  land,  the 
title  to  which  is  in  the  United  States,  is  not  taxable. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  You  gentlemen  who  are  lawyers  are  qualified  to  pass 
upon  that  question.  I  would  not  presume  to  offer  my  opinion  on  that 
question  in  this  distinguished  company.  If  I  did  'l  should  say  the 
land  could  not  be  taxed. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Mr.  Mondell,  may  I  ask  you  a  question  or  two?  When 
this  proposition  first  came  before  the  Congress  at  the  last  session,  I 
understood  that  the  primary  object  of  it  was  to  furnish  employment 
to  returning  soldiers. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Possibly  that  is  not  quite  an  accurate  statement. 
The  primary  object  is  to  furnish  employment  with  a  view  to  pro- 
viding homes. 

Mr.  SM.I.L.  That  was  one  of  the  objects? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  That  was  and  is. 

Mr.  SNELL.  From  the  statement  you  made  yesterday,  I  took  it  that 
you  thought  the  primary  object  of  this  was  for  the  purpose  of  es- 
tablishing the  community  idea  in  the  rural  life  of  the  country. 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  29 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Oh,  no.  I  trust  I  said  nothing  that  conveyed  that 
idea.  What  I  did  say  was  this — or  if  I  did  not  say  it,  perhaps  I 
should  say  it  now — 

Mr.  SNELL  (interposing).  It  produced  that  impression  upon  my 
mind. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  There  had  been  many  suggestions  as  to  the  way  in 
which  we  could  aid  the  soldier  in  securing  a  home  on  the  lands.  A 
good  many  people  were  of  the  opinion  that  all  that  was  necessary 
to  do  was  to  let  the  soldier  go  out  and  pick  out  a  piece  of  land 
wherever  he  saw  fit,  negotiate  for  its  purchase  and  advance  him  the 
money  with  which  to  purchase  it.  That  has  been  one  view. 

Every  man  who  has  had  to  do  with  settlement,  with  establishing 
men  on  farms,  or  supplying  men  with  farm  homes  that  I  have 
talked  with  insist  that  that  policy  will  inevitably  end  in  failure; 
that  it  has  wherever  it  has  been  tried;  that  to  grant  any  man  or  any 
considerable  number  of  men,  no  matter  how  well  intentioned  the 
majority  of  them  may  be,  an  opportunity  to  borrow  practically  the 
entire  cost  of  an  improved  farm  or  a  partly  improved  tract,  off  by 
himself  in  a  community  already  developed,  is  not  a  kindness  to  the 
man  in  the  majority  of  cases,  because  it  will  result  in  failure  and 
will  be  disastrous  from  the  standpoint  of  the  promotion  of  a  wise 
public  purpose.  These  men  who  have  had  to  do  with  such  move- 
ments of  development  which  seek  to  attach  men  to  the  soil,  to  secure 
homes  for  those  of  limited  means  on  the  farm,  I  think,  practically 
all  of  them,  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  only  certain  and  successful 
way  to  carry  on  this  enterprise  is  in  settlements  or  communities. 

Now,  that  means  the  development  of  the  community  spirit,  more 
or  less,  depending  upon  the  character  of  the  people,  their  desires, 
and  their  inclinations.  It  means  this,  that  everyone  within  a  cer- 
tain compact  area  is  a  settler  on  a  land  project,  purchasing  his  land 
under  the  same  conditions  of  obligation  with  regard  to  residence, 
improvement,  and  paymeint.  They  are  combined  into  a  community 
enterprise.  Everyone  of  them  in  many  of  these  communities  will 
live  on  his  land  and  on  his  farm  just  as  the  average  American  farmer 
does  now.  In  some  cases  they  may  be  disposed  to  gather  somewhat 
into  communities.  That  will  depend  upon  the  individuals,  and  will 
be  the  result  of  individual  disposition  and  desire,  andxnot  grow  out 
of  any  plan  or  purpose  of  the  bill.  However,  we  do  think  that  it 
is  essential  to  emphasize  the  community  idea  in  this,  that  there  is 
to  be  a  community  of  interest,  a  community  of  obligation,  a  com- 
munity of  hope.  There  should  be,  and  we  hope  there  will  be,  co- 
operation in  the  communities  in  many  lines.  How  far  that  coopera- 
tion will  extend,  will  again  depend  upon  the  people,  upon  the  view 
of  the  leading  spirits  of  the  community,  and  upon  the  wisdom  of 
the  men  who  form  the  community.  So  far  as  the  service  itself  is 
concerned,  we  wrill  begin  by  furnishing  the  people  the  benefits  of  co- 
operative buying  of  building  material  at  least. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Do  you  mean  that  everything  will  be  cooperative  in 
these  communities? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  No,  sir;  there  is  nothing  in  this  bill  that  makes 
anything  cooperative  in  these  communities.  There  is  nothing  that 
requires  anything  cooperative  in  a  community.  In  other  words,  we 
hope  to  do  just  as  they  are  doing  in  California — that  is,  buy  the 


30  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

lumber,  posts,  and  bricks,  so  far  as  they  will  be  needed  in  construc- 
tion, and  other  classes  of  material  in  quantity.  Those  advances  to 
the  settler  for  improvements  will  be  very  largely  in  the  form  of 
material.  Now,  that  far  you  will  have  community  cooperative  buy- 
ing through  the  Government;  but  what  the  community  will  do  in 
the  way  of  cooperation  must  rest  entirely  with  the  community  itself. 
There  is  nothing  in  this  bill  nor  in  the  administration  of  it  that 
compels  or  more  than  suggests  that  sort  of  thing. 

Mr.  SNELL.  You  have  community  buying  and  community  selling, 
and  I  thought  that  meant  cooperative  stores. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  No;  but  if  a  community  wants  to  establish  cooper- 
ative stores,  that  is  their  affair.  There  is  nothing  in  this  bill  requir- 
ing that.  When  I  say  "  community  development "  I  am  trying  to 
emphasize  the  idea  of  the  development  of  a  compact  area,  every  acre 
of  it,  with  no  alien  within  the  boundaries,  or  no  one  within  the  com- 
munity who  is  not  a  part  of  the  community.  Everybody  who  is  in 
that  particular  community  is  a  part  of  it.  Now,  they  may  be  just  as 
independent  in  their  methods  of  business  as  any  American  com- 
munity anywhere  or  they  may  do  what  other  American  communities 
have  tried  in  other  places  and  have  cooperative  buying  and  selling 
and  that  sort  of  thing.  That  is  something  for  them  to  deter- 
mine. The  community  idea,  as  it  is  carried  in  this  bill,  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  statute,  is  the  idea  of  developing  a  compact  area 
large  enough  to  constitute  a  community  which  will  be  largely  inde- 
pendent. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Mondell  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior,  Mr.  Lane,  is  here;  and  I  promised  that 
he  might  go  on  punctually  when  he  came.  If  you  are  willing  to  sus- 
pend for  the  time  being,  we  shall  hear  the  Secretary,  and  Mr.  Mon- 
dell may  resume  later. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  shall  be  very  glad  to  go  on  further  later,  or  if 
the  committee  does  not  care  to 'hear  me  further  I  shall  be  entirely 
content. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  wish  to  introduce 
to  you  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  Mr.  Lane.  We  shall  now  be 
glad  to  hear  you,  Mr.  Secretary. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  FRANKLIN  K.  LANE,  SECRETARY  OF  THE 
INTERIOR. 

Secretary  LANE.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee.  I 
am  very  sorry  to  break  in  on  your  regular  hearing,  and  especially 
upon  Mr.  Mondell's  talk.  I  have  nothing  particular  to  say,  except 
to  show  you  my  continuing  interest  in  this  proposition.  Its  historv 
you  perfectly  well  know.  The  reception  that  lias  been  given  to  this 
proposition  for  the  past  year,  because  it  was  just  a  year  ago  that  this 
plan  was  presented  to  the  President  and  to  Congress,  shows  that  it 
has  struck  a  popular  chord.  Thirty-seven  out  of  48  States  have 
either  passed  bills  furthering  this  plan  and  developing  a  scheme  of 
cooperation  or  have  appointed  committees  to  act  with  the  Depart- 
ment of  the  Interior  in  promoting  it.  That  shows  a  universal  desire 
for  some  such  plan  as  this.  At  first  it  was  thought  to  be  a  |:lan 
which  involved  particularly  the  interests  of  the  West,  but  as  the 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  31 

Members  of  Congress  and  State  legislatures,  governors,  and  news- 
papers gave  it  consideration,  they  discovered  that  it  was  a  plan  that 
was  coextensive  with  the  country,  and  that  it  is  in  fact  extending  to 
the  North  and  to  the  South  that  which  you  have  already  done  for 
the  West — that  is,  a  method  of  developing  unused  lands.  Some  days 
ago  I  received  from  Canada  a  statement  or  report  that  they  have 
had  made  as  to  the  desires  of  the  men  who  are  returning  from  France 
to  Canada. 

It  appears  that  they  sent  representatives  to  France  to  take  a  census 
or  to  make  a  report  on  the  soldiers  in  France  as  to  their  desires  with 
respect  to  taking  up  land,  and,  to  my  great  surprise,  I  found  that  49 
per  cent  were  reported  upon  their  questionnaires,  or  about  100,000 
out  of  the  200,000  who  will  return  out  of  that  force  of  400,000  that 
they  sent  across,  as  saying  that  their  desire  is  to  get  a  piece  of  land 
for  themselves  and  to  take  an  agricultural  course,  to  improve  that 
land,  and  make  farming  their  careers.  We,  of  course,  have  not  been 
able  to  make  any  such  study  in  this  country.  We  have  sent  to  some 
of  the  cantonments  during  the  winter  a  little  pamphlet,  which,  no 
doubt,  most  of  you  have  seen.  It  is  a  sort  of  questionnaire  or  cate- 
chism, and  we  have  gotten  responses  from  a  large  number  of  men. 
Up  to  this  morning  we  had  received  52,000  answers  from  men  w**> 
expressed  their  desire  to  have  one  of  these  farms  or  to  work  on  one 
of  these  projects.  In  addition  to  these  we  have  received  about 
12,000  letters  written  by  the  boys  themselves.  Some  of  them  came 
from  France,  but  only  to  a  very  limited  extent  have  we  been  able  in 
any  way  to  reach  France  as  yet  and  find  out  what  those  boys  there 
desire.  These  men,  largely  of  their  own  initiative,  and  because  of 
what  they  had  seen  in  the  American  press,  have  written  letters  ex- 
pressing their  desire  to  be  counted  in. 

The  bill  that  is  before  you,  I  understand,  is  the  Mondell  bill. 
That  is  a  result  of  a  study  made  by  Mr.  Mondell  of  various  bills  that 
were  presented  at  the  last  session  of  Congress.  He  came  to  me  with 
the  bill  some  weeks  ago,  saying  that  he  had  taken  the  Taylor  bill  and 
other  bills  which  gentlemen  had  presented,  and  had  put  the  pro- 
visions of  those  bills,  with  some  modifications,  into  what  he  re- 
garded as  a  more  orderly  and  consistent  shape.  He  wanted  us  in 
the  Interior  Department  to  pass  upon  the  bill  as  drafted.  I  referred 
it  to  the  Reclamation  Service  and  to  those  gentlemen  who  are 
familiar  with  the  problems  involved  in  a  large  way,  and  they  made 
certain  suggestions  by  way  of  amendments.  After  that  a  conference 
was  held  at  which  representatives  of  the  House  and  Senate  com- 
mittees were  present.  After  full  discussion  Mr.  Mondell  introduced 
the  bill  in  its  present  form  in  the  House.  I  think  that  I  can  say 
without  any  disparagement  of  any  of  the  other  bills  that  probably 
the  Mondell  bill  is  one  that  gives  expression  in  the  most  exact  way, 
and,  perhaps,  as  fully  as  may  be  necessary,  to  the  desire  of  the  de- 
partment. In  other  words,  it  is  the  ripe  fruit  of  a  larger  experience. 

There  is  no  urging  that  I  can  give  to  you  in  this  matter.  You 
appreciate  that  there  is  practically  a  call  from  the  country  for  its 
passage.  Some  such  plan  is  desired  by  the  country,  not  simply  for 
the  sake  of  the  men  themselves,  not  simply  to  show  gratitude  for  the 
service  that  they  have  rendered,  and  not  simply  as  a  means  of  staving 
off  congestion  in  cities  and  giving  employment  to  men  who  are  un- 
133319—19—3 


32  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

employed,  but  as  a  means  for  the  further  development  of  the  United 
States.  Each  day  it  becomes  more  manifest  to  me,  and  I  have  no 
doubt  it  does  to  you,  that  a  considerable  portion  of  the  support  of 
the  world  for  the  next  few  years  is  to  devolve  upon  us,  and  it  be- 
hooves us  to  put  as  much  of  our  land  as  we  can  under  cultivation. 
Furthermore,  it  is  manifest  to  everyone  that  the  man  who  is  the 
owner  of  a  part  of  the  soil  has  a  new  loyalty,  or  something  that 
attaches  him  to  America  and  to  American  standards,  that  the  man 
who  does  not  have  that  same  identity  of  interest  can  not  have.  The 
American  soldier  ought  to  make  an  ideal  farmer.  The  man  who  has 
been  in  France  has  had  the  kind  of  experience  which  ought  to  make 
him  well  fitted  for  this  work. 

It  is  my  hope  that  as  an  outgrowth  of  this  plan,  it  will  be  possible 
to  make  conditions  surrounding  farm  life  far  more  tolerable  to  our 
people.  You  can  not  expect  that  we  will  pass  through  the  next 
lew  years  without  very  considerable  changes  in  our  attitude  toward 
all  kinds  of  people  who  work  with  their  hands,  and  who  produce 
through  a  combination  of  capital,  brains,  and  labor.  One  of  the 
changes  which  seems  to  me  to  be  most  needed  is  a  change  by  which 
the  people  who  work  upon  the  soil  will  have  more  of  the  advantages 
of  those  of  us  who  can  gather  together  in  the  cities. 

I  find  by  my  talks  with  men  who  have  returned  from  France  that 
they  have  been  greatly  impressed  with  the  manner  in  which  the 
French  farming  communities  carry  on  their  life.  There,  as  you 
know,  the  farmer  lives  in  a  village  and  goes  out  to  his  little  farm  to 
work.  That  does  not  seem  to  be  the  desire  of  our  people.  They  wish 
to  have  the  home  on  the  land.  Then  there  are  a  good  many  who 
have  no  desire  for  farms,  but  Avho  have  a  desire  for  a  small  acreage 
that  they  can  use  as  a  garden  patch  to  supplement  the  wages  that 
they  make  on  the  outside.  For  that  reason,  in  this  settlement  scheme 
we  propose  to  have  a  part  of  it  divided  up  into  tracts  of  from  2 
to  5  acres,  upon  which  those  who  dp  not  wish  to  take  on  the  respon- 
sibilities of  full  farm  life  but  are  willing  to  work  for  wages  can  have 
their  homes  and  can  be  to  that  extent  independent.  The  plans  that 
we  have  outlined  to  you  in  the  past  have  been  carried  on  to  the  extent 
that  we  could  under  the  appropriations  that  were  alloAved  us.  We 
have  practically  been  able  to  do  nothing  more  than  we  had  done 
up  to  the  time  Congress  adjourned,  for  the  reason  that  our  money 
has  been  expended.  The  data  that  we  have  gathered  are  at  your 
service,  as  well  as  the  men  who  are  here  and  who  have  gone  out  and 
made  a  survey  of  all  sections  of  the  country. 

It  is  a  remarkable  thing  to  me  that  in  parts  of  the  United  States 
where  it  was  expected  the  least  support  would  be  given  to  this  plan 
there  has  been  a  most  generous  and  enthusiastic  support.  For  in- 
stance, Massachusetts,  which  has  been  neglected  agriculturally  for  a 
long  while,  is  going  through  a  period  of  rebirth  with  respect  to  agri- 
culture. And  so  it  is  with  many  of  the  other  States.  They  realize 
the  advantage  of  holding  their  own  men  to  them  and  developing 
their  own  lands  near  the  centers  of  consumption,  and  of  proving 
llnit  their  land  which  was  long  ago  deserted  by  their  own  people 
really  never  should  have  been  deserted,  because  it  has  capacities 
that  never  have  been  realized. 

I  have  no  desire  to  enter  upon  a  discussion  of  the  details  of  this 
bill  lhat  you  gentlemen  are  very  familiar  with, but  I  simply  wanted  to 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  33 

say  a  word  by  way  of  expressing  the  attitude  of  the  entire  country 
toward  this  measure.  There  was,  in  the  first  instance,  some  criti- 
cism, based  upon  the  fact  that  it  was  supposed  that  we  were  to  re- 
claim 250,000,000  or  300,000,000  acres  of  land  out  of  hand,  so  that 
some  of  those  farmers  who  have  land  of  their  own  were  afraid  there 
would  be  developed  something  in  the  way  of  competition.  But  it 
has  been  made  quite  evident  that  not  more  than  one-fifth  of  the 
demand  for  now  land  arising  out  of  our  increased  population  would 
be  met  by  this  plan. 

I  think  that  is  all  I  have  to  say,  gentlemen. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Secretary,  I  wish  to  ask  you  what  machinery 
or  organization  you  have  in  your  department  to  handle  this  scheme  ? 

Secretary  LANE.  Well,  of  course,  the  primary  machinery  we  have 
is  the  Keclamation  Service,  organized  for  the  reclamation  of  arid 
lands.  We  have  supplemented  that  by  adding  to  that  service  engi- 
neers who  have  made  a  study  of  the  southern  and  northern  sections  of 
the  country  east  of  the  Mississippi  Elver.  We  are  not  able  now  to  go 
further  into  the  question  of  personnel,  because  until  we  know  that 
this  bill  can  be  passed  it  is  not  possible  for  us  to  tender  anyone  a 
position.  It  is  necessary  for  us  to  know  just  as  soon  as  possible  that 
this  measure  is  going  through,  or  that  it  will  go  through,  in  order 
that  we  may  be  able  to  carry  out  the  chartered  organization  that  we 
have.  That  is  to  say,  we  have  a  plan  of  the  organization  already  pre- 
pared, but  we  are  not  able  to  say  to  anyone  what  positions  there 
will  be. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  many  replies  have  you  received  from  soldiers 
saying  that  they  would  like  to  take  advantage  of  this  proposed  legis- 
lation ? 

Secretary  LANE.  52.000. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Have  you  a  copy  of  your  questionnaire  here  ? 

Secretary  LANE.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  may  be  inserted  in  the  record  at  this  point. 

(The  matter  referred  to  is  as  follows:) 

(Department  of  the  Interior,   Franklin   K.   Lane,   Secretary,   U.   S.   Reclamation    Servict, 
Arthur  P.  Davis,  Director.) 

"  HEY,  THERE!  "    Do  You  WANT  A  HOME  ON  A  FARM? 
If  so,  read  this;  fill  in  back  page;  tear  off;  mail — no  postage  required. 

WORK   AND   HOMES   FOR   OUR   FIGHTING   MEN. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean,  work  and  homes? — A.  Just  this:  Favorable  action  by 
Congress  at  the  special  session  is  expected  on  soldiers'  settlement  legislation, 
similar  to  that  introduced  and  favorably  reported  at  the  recent  session.  If 
such  legislation  is  passed  it  will  enable  the  Interior  Department  to  begin  work 
at  once  developing  cooperative  farm  settlements  for  soldiers  and  sailors  in  all 
or  nearly  all  of  the  States. 

Q.  Who  will  get  the  farms? — A.  Those  who  create  them  by  working  on  drain- 
ing, clearing,  irrigating,  and  improving  the  lands. 

Q.  Will  all  get  farms'.' — A.  That  depends  on  the  amount  of  land  reclaimed. 

Q.  Is  this  plan  only  for  men  who  have  been  across? — A.  No.  It  is  for  all  of 
the  men  who  have  worn  Uncle  Sam's  uniform  in  the  Great  War. 

Q.  Where  is  this  land  located? — A.  In  practically  every  State  in  the  Union 
there  are  large  areas  of  this  land.  There  is  dry  land  in'  the  West  that  needs 
water,  which  can  be  provided  by  building  dams  and  canals.  In  the  East  are 
large  areas  of  cut-over  or  logged-off  timber  land,  from  which  it  will  be  neces- 


34  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

sary  to  blow  the  stumps  and  clear  off  the  underbrush.  In  the  South  is  a  large 
amount  of  cut-over  land  and  swamp  land  which  must  be  drained. 

Q.  Could  I  get  a  job  near  my  old  home? — A.  Probably  you  could.  Those  pro- 
posed settlements  are  scattered  all  over  the  country,  and'  it  is  planned  to  have 
•one  in  each  State,  if  Congress  provides  the  money  for  construction. 

Q.  How  about  wages? — A.  You  would  be  paid  fair  wages  by  the  Government 
while  doing  this  work — just  as  good  wages  as  you  would  be  able  to  get  in  outside 
work  of  like  character. 

Q.  Would  I  be  enlisted? — A.  No.  This  work  is  only  for  men  who  have  been 
honorably  discharged  from  the  service. 

Q.  What  kind  of  work  is  it?— A.  The  Government  will  have  work  of  all  kinds 
in  connection  with  these  settlements,  from  the  highest  technical  and  clerical 
positions  to  that  of  laborer. 

Q.  Now,  how  about  getting  a  home  out  of  this, — A.  After  you  have  helped 
build  the  dams  and  canals,  or  cleared  the  cut-over  land  of  stumps,  or  built  the 
ditches  to  drain  the  swamp  land:  after  you  have  helped  to  erect  houses  and 
barns,  built  fences,  constructed  roads,  and  laid  out  town  sites,  built  creameries, 
•canneries,  warehouses,  schools,  etc.;  after  you  have,  in  fact,  actually  reclaimed 
the  land,  the  Government  will  allow  you  to  pick  out  one  of  these  farms  planted 
in  crops. 

Q.  Does  the  Government  give  me  this  farm  for  nothing? — A.  No.  And  you 
wouldn't  want  the  Government  to  do  it.  The  plan  is  to  arrange  for  you  to  pay 
for  your  farm  home  in  small  payments  over  a  long  term  of  years,  with  interest 
charges  at  the  rate  of  4  per  cent  per  annum. 

Q.  How  about  stock  and  farm  implements? — A.  It  is  planned  that  the  Gov- 
ernment will  also  furnish  you  with  the  necessary  stock  and  farm  implements, 
to  be  paid  for  by  you  in  small  payments  spread  over  several  years. 

Q.  Where  will  I  get  the  money  to  make  even  these  small  payments? — A.  You 
should  be  able  to  save  the  amount  of  the  first  payment  out  of  your  wages  while 
working  for  the  Government  helping  to  build  these  settlements.  The  balance 
you  should  be  able  to  pay  from  the  proceeds  from  the  sale  of  your  crops. 

Q.  I  think  I  should  like  farm  life,  but  I  don't  like  the  idea  of  being  too  far 
jiway  from  other  people. — A.  It  is  the  plan,  if  Congress  passes  the  bill  now 
pending  before  it,  to  build  what  are  known  as  community  settlements,  each 
containing  not  less  than  100  farm  homes  surrounding  a  town,  so  that  you  will 
have  near  neighbors,  good  roads  over  which  to  bring  your  produce  to  town,  and 
a  market  for  the  sale  of  your  produce  within  a  short  distance  of  your  farm 
home. 

Q.  How  many  acres  will  my  farm  contain? — A.  This  will  depend  upon  the 
location  and  kind  of  farming  you  engage  in.  For  general  farming  from  40 
,to  80  acres^  each,  live  stock  from  80  to  160  acres,  fruit  farms  15  to  20  acres,  and 
truck  from  5  to  20  acres. 

Q.  I  don't  know  anything  about  farming,  but  would  like  to  get  a  farm  home. 
How  will  I  learn  to  farm? — A.  Competent  instructors  in  farm  practice  will  be 
stationed  on  each  project  to  teach  men  like  you  just  how  to  make  a  success  of 
farming. 

Q.  You  say  that  this  plan  depends  on  Congress  passing  this  bill.  Then,  why 
are  you  asking , me  these  questions  now,  before  the  bill  is  passed? — A.  Because 
Congress  has  asked  the  Interior  Department  to  make  a  preliminary  investiga- 
tion of  possible  settlements  throughout  the  country,  and  also  wishes  to  know 
whether,  if  construction  of  these  settlements  is  authorized,  the  soldiers,  sailors, 
and  marines  would  be  interested  in  securing  work  and  homes  on  these  settle- 
ments. 

Q.  Can  I  get  any  further  information  about  the  plan? — A.  Yes.  Fill  out  the 
post  card  on  the  last  page  of  this  booklet  and  mail  it.  It  doesn't  require  any 
postage.  Your  name  will  then  be  on  file  in  the  Interior  Department,  so  that 
you  can  be  notified  later  if  the  plan  is  started.  It  is  not  possible  now  to  say 
when  this  information  can  be  sent  you,  and  you  should,  of  course,  in  the  mean- 
time not  sit  idly  by,  but  instead  accept  the  best  employment  that  now  pre- 
sents itself.  You  are  urged  on  your  return  home  to  get  in  touch  with  the 
Tinted  Slates  Employment  Service  in  your  locality  and  with  your  local  council 
of  defense,  both  of  which  organizations  will  gladly  give  you  advice  and  assist- 
ance in  securing  employment,  now. 

Now  fill  out  the  post  card  on  the  back  page  and  mail  it.  You  don't  have 
to  put  a  stamp  on  it.  Be  sure  and  sign  your  name  and  write  plainly.  But 
remember  that  this  means  work.  This  is  not  a  bounty  scheme.  It  will  gi\e  a 
chance  to  own  u  farm  only  to  those  who  want  to  work  a  farm. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  35 

DEPAETMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR. 

UNITED   STATES   RECLAMATION    SERVICE. 

Name  in  full 

Home   address 

How  did  are  you? 

What  was  your  occupation  before  you  enlisted? 

Have  you  ever  worked  on  a  farm? 

Are  you  interested  in  this  plan  to  provide  work  and  a  farm  for  you? 


What  kind  of  farming  do  you  wish  to  follow?  State  whether  general,  live  stock, 
truck,  or  fruit • 

Would  you  be  willing  to  take  a  job  on  some  project  if  offered  to  you? 

In  your  own  State? Anywhere  in  the  United  States? 


WRITE  PLAINLY  AND   MAIL  TO-DAY — NO  POSTAGE  REQUIRED. 

Mr.  SXELL.  Mr.  Secretary,  is  there  any  section  of  the  country 
where  there  is  an  excess  of  rural  labor  at  the  present  time  ? 

Secretary  LANE.  I  do  not  know  that  there  is. 

Mr.  iSNELL.  What  would  be  the  effect  in  any  section  of  the  country,, 
as,  for  instance,  in  central  New  York  State,  if  you  were  to  establish 
one  of  these  projects?  That  is  my  State,  and  we  have  now  a  great 
shortage  of  farm  labor.  If  you  were  to  take  up  a  large  plat  of 
ground  there  and  establish  one  of  these  Government  projects,  what 
would  be  the  effect  of  that  upon  the  farm  labor  surrounding  it  in 
that  State  ? 

Secretary  LANE.  I  do  not  know  how  it  could  affect  that  mate- 
rially. We  have  about  1,000,000  men  still  left  in  France,  and  I  do  not 
know  what  percentage  of  the  men  in  the  cantonments  have  been  demo- 
bilized, but  you  must  realize  that  as  an  outgrowth  of  this  bill  if  you 
were  to  give  us  this  year  $125,000,000,  that  would  take  care  of  ap- 

Eroximately  not  more  than  25,000  farms;  so  that  the  drain  made  upon 
arm  labor'in  New  York  could  not  be  very  great. 

Mr.  SNELL.  I  am  especially  interested  in  the  condition  of  the 
farmers  at  the  present  time.  I  represent  a  purely  agricultural  dis- 
trict, and  there  is  absolutely  no  help  to  be  obtained  to  work  on  the 
farms.  All  of  our  people  are  very  much  interested  in  anything  that 
will  tend  to  disturb  what  little  farm  labor  there  is.  It  seems  to  me 
that  if  a  project  of  this  kind  were  established  in  the  central  part  of 
New  York  State  in  which  you  would  employ,  say,  1,000  men,  pay- 
ing them  $4  or  $5  per  day,  the  few  farm  laborers  that  we  have  would 
flock  down  there.  Legitimate  farmers  could  not  possibly  compete 
with  that  sort  of  market  for  labor  and  make  a  living. 

Secretary  LANE.  The  wages  that  we  would  pay  would  not  meet 
the  wages  being  paid  for  any  kind  of  skilled  labor  in  New  York. 

Mr.  SNELL.  I  do  not  mean  skilled  labor,  but  I  mean  common  farm 
labor. 

Secretary  LANE.  These  men  would  not  be  there  in  the  initial  stages- 
of  this  enterprise  in  any  such  numbers  as  to  be  a  source  of  embar- 
rassment to  the  farmers  of  central  New  York. 

Mr.  SNELL.  How  many  men  would  you  put  on  a  project  in  its 
initial  stages,  for  instance? 

Secretary  LANE.  I  would  suppose  that  if  we  got  4,000  men  on  a. 
project  that  we  would  be  doing  extremely  well. 


36  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  SNELL.  The  taking  of  4,000  farm  laborers  from  central  New 
York  would  absolutely  cripple  us  with  what  we  have  there  at  the 
present  time. 

Secretary  LANE.  These  men  are  not  farm  laborers,  but  they  are 
men  who  are  interested  in  this  proposition,  or  men  who  have  been 
everything — street  car  conductors,  foresters,  miners,  etc.  They  are 
not  farm  laborers  who  have  sent  these  requests  to  us.  About  70  or 
80  per  cent  of  them  are  men  Avho  have  had  some  agricultural 
experience. 

Mr.  SNELL.  I  appreciate  that;  but  if  you  should  establish  one  of 
those  projects  there,  would  not  the  boys  in  northern  New  York,  for 
instance,  say,  "  I  would  rather  go  down  there  and  work  for  the 
Government  for  nice  pay  than  to  work  as  a  common  everyday  farmer 
has  to  do  in  iNew  York?  " 

Secretary  LANE.  I  should  suppose  they  would.  I  should  rather 
think  that  if  I  were  a  fellow  with  a  chance  like  that,  and  who  had 
been  across  in  France,  I  would  want  to  get  some  sort  of  farm  for 
myself,  and  that  if  I  saw  an  opportunity  to  get  that  farm  I  would 
not  work  regularly  upon  a  farm  for  wages  for  somebody  else  but 
would  strike  out  for  myself.  I  think  we  ought  to  give  them  that 
chance. 

Mr.  SNELL.  But  in  doing  that  you  would  cripple  the  original  farm 
industry  in  that  section  of  the  country. 

Secretary  LANE.  Coming  from  a  farming  section,  as  you  know  I 
do,  because  I  come  from  one  of  the  great  farming  sections  of  the 
country,  I  know  that  at  this  time  of  the  year  the  farmer  is  always 
busy  and  is  always  unhappy  because  of  the  prospect  of  shortage  of 
labor.  Last  year  I  remember  distinctly,  when  the  war  was  on,  how 
utterly  hopeless  the  promise  was  that  there  would  be  a  sufficient 
amount  of  farm  labor  to  harvest  the  crops;  and  yet  you  in  New 
York  got  your  women  into  the  fields,  and  they  were  enthusiastic 
about  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Before  you  get  through  I  would  like  to  ask  a  few 
questions,  Mr.  Secretary.  There  is  a  matter  that  has  been  discussed 
before,  and  one  which  is  in  the  various  bills,  and  I  asked  Mr.  Mondell 
about  it  this  morning,  and  I  desire  to  ask  you  also,  as  you  have 
given  this  matter  from  the  very  beginning  your  personal  attention ; 
in  fact,  I  know  of  no  man  who  has  been  more  active  in  it  than 
yourself. 

Section  2  provides  that  the  Secretary  may  withdraw,  etc.,  public 
lands  suitable  for  such  purposes.  I  will  refer  only  to  that  part  of 
it  relating  to  withdrawal;  and  the  question  in  the  minds  of  the 
committee,  or  some  of  us,  is  wehther  or  not  that  would  give  a  general 
authorization  to  withdraw  all  of  the  public  domain  or  just  a  part 
which  was  necessary  or  thought  advisable  for  the  project  under 
contemplation  ? 

Secretary  LANE.  That  power,  of  course,  is  rather  broad,  and  it 
might  be  used  to  do  injury  in  some  of  the  States  unless  it  was 
carefully  exercised;  but  the  intention  is  to  withdraw  only  those 
pieces  of  land  that  are  needed  directly  for  this  purpose.  It  is  a 
power  that  has  gone  generally  with  the  reclamation  projects. 

MF.KAKKK.  While  the  power  exists  your  view  would  be  that  only 
such  lands  us  were  considered  suitable  for  this  purpose  would  be 
withdrawn. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  37 

Secretary  LANE.  Yes.  We  will  follow  the  general  policy  which 
we  1m  ve  followed  regarding  reclamation  projects  which  is  that  only 
when  and  where  we  undertake  the  examination  of  a  project  for  con- 
struction do  we  withdraw  the  land,  and  if  found  unfeasible  for  any 
reason  the  land  is  restored  to  the  public  domain. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  even  then,  after  an  investigation  is  had,  if  a 
part  of  the  land  turned  out  to  be  not  suitable  for  the  project,  it  would 
be  released  so  that  it  could  be  used  for  other  purposes  ? 

Secretary  LANE.  Yes.  I  can  think  of  only  one  project,  one  large 
tract  of  land,  in  the  whole  West  that  we  have  not  developed  that  we 
have  withdrawn,  and  that  is  the  Imperial  Mesa,  and  that  is  with- 
drawn in  the  prospect  of  getting  a  canal  through  there. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  while  that  power  is  in  the  bill  you  feel,  as  Sec- 
retary of  the  Interior,  that  the  people  in  the  West  would  have  no 
fear  upon  that  score. 

Secretary  LANE.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  danger  in  that.  I 
have  never  heard  any  complaint  from  the  West  upon  that  score  re- 
garding reclamation  projects. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  have  just  one  other  suggestion.  The  Members  of 
the  House  will  undoubtedly  be  asking  for  it,  and  if  it  is  not  too 
bulky,  would  it  be  agreable  to  the  committee  if  the  Secretary  would 
insert  in  the  hearings  the  laws  of  the  several  States  passed  upon  this 
homestead  bill  at  the  present  time,  so  that  we  might  have  them  in 
condensed  form. 

Secretary  LANE.  Very  good;  I  will  send  you  a  copy  of  all  the 
legislation  and  the  action  of  all  the  States  upon  this  matter. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  may  we  have  that  inserted  in  the  record? 

Secretary  LANE.  It  will  not  be  long. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  without  objection  that  will  be  inserted,  al- 
though I  think  in  the  letter  of  the  Secretary  passing  upon  the  bill, 
that  is  commented  upon,  although  I  do  not  know  how  extensively  it 
is  set  out. 

Secretary  LANE.  Yes;  and  I  sent  to  you  also  a  synopsis  of  each 
one  of  the  pieces  of  legislation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Without  objection  that  will  be  inserted  in  the 
record  together  with  the  Secretary's  report  on  the  Mondell,  Ferris, 
and  other  bills. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  make  a  suggestion  in  reference 
to  that.  Might  we  not  transpose  the  insertion  of  these  bills  and  the 
Secretary's  report  to  the  beginning  of  the  hearing  or  has  that  been 
done  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No ;  it  has  not  been  done  yet. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  May  I  make  that  suggestion  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN/ I  think  it  is  a  good  suggestion. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Then  those  who  want  to  delve  into  the  Secretary's 
views  and  the  action  of  the  various  States,  and  the  laws  or  the  bills, 
could  have  that  matter  come  first  without  wading  through  a  long 
hearing  such  as  this  is  apt  to  be. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  comports  with  my  view,  and  I  think  it  is  a  good 
suggestion. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Without  objection,  that  will  be  done. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  have  just  one  other  question.  I  do  not  like  to  take 
the  time  of  the  committee,  but  it  is  a  matter  that  is  in  my  mind 


38  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

and  if  the  committee  will  permit,  I  would  like  to  ask  the  Secretary 
some  questions  as  to  residence.  Mr.  Secretary,  in  most  of  the  bills 
the  provision  with  reference  to  residence  is  about  as  follows : 

The  Secretary  shall  make  regulations  general  in  character  or  applicable  to 
specific  projects  as  to  residence,  etc. 

Now,  my  question  relates  solely  to  residence.  Is  it  not  your  view 
that  there  should  be  a  specific  residence  of  some  kind  by  the  home- 
steader— and  I  will  call  all  these  soldiers  homesteaders — upon  this 
land? 

Secretary  LANE.  Unquestionably.  That  is  the  policy  of  the  Con- 
gress. We  do  not  dispose  of  any  land  unless  we  have  a  residence 
provided  for,  and  we  want  to  see  that  these  men  stay  with  the 
proposition.  We  are  trying  to  make  homes  for  these  men  as  well  as 
develop  the  land. 

Mr.  RAKER.  This  is  a  mater  of  detail,  but  the  bill  provides  for 
patents  or  deeds.  The  bill  as  reported  out  by  the  Committee  on  Irri- 
gation of  Arid  Lands,  of  which  Mr.  Taylor  was  the  chairman,  was 
gone  over,  and  the  former  bill,  that  was  suggested  by  }'ourself,  had 
the  word  "  deed  "  in  it.  The  committee  struck  it  out  because  of  the 
policy  which  is  familiar  to  everybody  who  is  familiar  with  patents, 
and  you  approved  that  substitution.  I  would  like  to  ask  whether  or 
not  it  would  be  better  to  simply  follow  the  practice  of  issuing  patents 
and  not  get  into  the  habit  of  granting  deeds?  It  is  only  a  matter 
of  details,  but  I  want  to  know  your  opinion  on  that. 

Secretary  LANE.  I  do  not  think  the  presence  of  both  would  be  any 
embarrassment. 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  would  make  no  material  difference  ? 

Secretary  LANE.  No. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  May  I  interrupt  to  suggest  that  inasmuch  as  this  bill 
provides  for  the  acceptance  of  bequests  and  gifts  and  donations,  in 
that  event  you  perhaps  wrould  want  to  transfer  by  deed  such  deeded 
lands  as  might  be  given  and  received  by  gift.  You  would  not  want 
to  go  back  and  inject  a  Government  patent  at  that  stage. 

Secretary  LANE.  No;  the  expectation  is  that  those  lands  that  are 
acquired  shall  be  transferred  in  the  same  way  they  are  acquired, 
namely,  by  deed. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  That  would  necessitate  the  presence  of  that  word. 

Secretary  LANE.  We  thought  it  would  be  the  safe  thing  to  put  in 
both. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  one  other  matter  in  connection  with  the  con- 
tracts. The  party  would  not  be  in  a  position  to  transfer  a  contract 
by  mortgage,  trust,  or  otherwise  for  10  years.  We  had  in  one  of  the 
bills  that  the  Government  should  retain  its  lien.  Do  you  not  believe 
that  in  some  form  we  ought  to  retain  that  in  this  legislation;  that 
where  a  contract  is  given  or  a  patent  is  issued,  if  the  whole  price  is 
not  paid,  the  Government  should  retain  its  lien  until  it  is  disposed  of? 

Secretary  LANE.  I  think  it  does.  It  can  not  help  but  retain  its  lien 
until  the  price  is  paid. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Raker,  Mr.  Finney  has  prepared  an  amend- 
ment on  that  point,  and  I  have  it  here. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then  just  one  other  question.  While  the  bill  does  not 
provide  for  it  and  it  has  not  been  followed  very  extensively  in  the 
West,  and  has  caused  a  great  deal  of  trouble  in  the  way  of  abstracts 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  39 

of  title  and  keeping  the  records  straight,  and  I  want  to  ask  the  Sec- 
retary if  he  does  not  believe  it  would  be  a  good  provision  to  add  in 
the  bill  that  these  matters  of  authorization  by  Congress  and  all  con- 
tracts by  the  Government  should  be  recorded' in  the  county  in  which 
the  land  is  situated.  That  would  relieve  us  from  all  this  trouble  we 
have  had  before. 

Secretary  LANE.  Yes,  I  do.  I  think  it  would  be  a  very  good  thing 
if  we  could  have  a  system  by  which  there  could  be  a  clear  run  of 
title  and  have  something  along  the  line  of  the  Torrens  plan  adopted, 
so  a  man  would  know  what  his  property  was  and  would  be  able  to 
transfer  it  quickly. 

Mr.'  RAKER.  And  everybody  dealing  with  him  would  know  about 
his  title.  There  is  one  other  question  that  Mr.  Mondell  was  discuss- 
ing yesterday,  and  I  think  it  was  discussed  with  }'ou  before,  and  you 
touched  on  it  lightly  this  morning,  and  that  is  in  regard  to  the  com- 
munity life.  Your*  answer  just  given  that  the  man  should  live  on 
his  place  practically  answers  the  question  I  intended  to  put;  that  the 
man  should  live  on  his  place,  and  if  he  had  a  little  tract  he  could  go 
to  the  town.  Would  it  be  advisable  for  us  to  put  in  this  legislation 
some  provision  whereby  they  could  form — as  they  are  doing  and  as 
you  have  so  successfully  maintained  in  the  West — an  organization  so 
you  would  have  something  to  deal  with  directly  and  would  not 
have  to  deal  with  each  individual  man  where  he  had  filed  upon  land 
or  had  taken  out  his  homestead.  I  don't  know  whether  I  make  myself 
clear  or  not. 

Secretary  LAXE.  I  think  I  understand  you.  What  you  have  in 
mind  is  whether  there  should  not  be  something  analogous  to  a  water 
user's  association. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes. 

Secretary  LANE.  Of  course,  we  can  do  that  now.  There  is  nothing 
to  prevent*  the  formation  of  such  an  association.  We  want  to  keep 
our  individual  hold  upon  the  man,  but  I  think  it  would  be  wise 
policy  to  provide  for  the  organization  of  cooperative  associations. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  that  could  be  done  under  present  legislation  the 
same  as  you  are  doing  now. 

Secretary  LANE.  Yes ;  there  is  no  need  for  that  in  the  legislation  at 
all.  That  is  beneficial  as  a  means  of  dealing  with  men  collectively, 
because  the  idea  is  that  all  these  things  should  be  continued  in  the 
hands  of  the  Government  no  longer  than  is  necessary.  The  trouble 
with  us  is  that  we  hang  on  to  things  that  we  ought  to  get  rid  of 
just  as  soon  as  there  is  somebody  who  can  take  hold  of  them  and 
handle  them  effectively. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  what  I  was  trying  to  develop. 

Mr.  FERRIS  Mr.  Chairman,  if  the  committee  will  indulge  me,  I 
would  like  to  ask  one  or  two  elementary  questions  which  I  think  will 
help  us  in  presenting  this  matter. 

Mr.  Secretary,  your  activity  in  this  matter  makes  us  all  look  to 
you  more  or  less,  and  for  that  reason  I  want  to  hit  a  few  high  places 
if  I  may,  and  clear  them  up  in  vour  testimony. 

Section  1,  if  you  have  the  bill  before  you,  as  I  read  it  and  as  I 
understand  it,  applies  only  to  soldiers  of  the  war  with  Germany. 

Secretary  LANE.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  is  that  as  it  is  intended  ? 


40  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Secretary  LANE.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Is  there  any  doubt  but  what  it  excludes  all  civilians 
and  others  other  than  soldiers  ? 

Secretary  LANE.  No.  It  was  intended  primarily  to  do  two  things, 
to  give  employment  to  these  boys  who  come  out  of  our  Army  now  and 
to  provide  a  means  of  their  getting  farms. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  If  there  is  any  doubt  as  to  the  purport  and  meaning 
of  the  section  other  than  that,  it  will  be  agreeable  to  you  to  have  it 
amended  in  that  way? 

Secretary  LANE.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  do  you  say  as  to  the  advisability  of  taking  in 
the  soldiers  of  any  other  war. 'for  instance,  the  Spanish-American 
War,  or  the  Veterans  of  the  Civil  War.  if  any  there  be? 

Secretary  LANK.  I  think  if  you  start  this  thing  and  carry  it  on  for 
a  year,  and  you  find  that  is  advisable,  you  can  do  it  at  the  end  of  a 
year  better  than  you  can  now;  but  we  ought,  I  think,  as  a  national 
matter,  and  as  a  matter  of  pride,  do  as  much  for  these  men  as  other 
countries  are  doing  for  their  men  who  are  similarly  situated. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  so  for  the  present  it  ought  to  be  made  perfectly 
clear  that  it  excludes  all  civilians,  and  on  the  other  hand  that  it 
applies  only  to  those  soldiers  who  were  in  the  war  with  Germany, 
who  desire  to  avail  themselves  of  it. 

Secretary  LANK.  Yes. 

Mr.  SMITH.  May  I  ask  you  a  question,  Mr.  Secretary?  Have  you 
given  any  consideration  to  the  fact  than  on  the  border,  a  year  before 
we  declared  war,  we  had  nearly  50,000  men,  a  great  many  of  whom 
did  not  enter  the  Army  in  the  war  with  Germany? 

Secretary  LANE.  Why  not? 

Mr.  SMITH.  They  may  have  been  wounded  or  ill,  or  they  were  not 
able  to  meet  the  physical  requirements,  or  there  may  have  been  a 
number  of  reasons  why  they  did  not  have  an  opportunity  of  getting 
into  the  Army  during  the  war  with  Germany.  It  seems  to  me  it 
would  be  very  unwise  to  close  the  opportunity  to  those  men,  and  I  do 
riot  see  where  there  is  any  argument  in  favor  of  limiting  this  law 
only  to  the  soldiers  who  were  in  the  war  with  Germany,  when  we 
have  probablv  many  Spanish-American  War  veterans  who  would 
like  to  have  the  opportunity  presented  to  them,  although  they  might 
not  avail  themselves  of  it.  When  you  discriminate  between  soldiers 
who  have  served  our  country  in  any  war,  you  are  inviting  opposition 
which  seems  to  me  to  be  unnecessary. 

Secretary  LANE.  Just  on  that  point  of  opposition,  do  you  not 
think  you  will  have  more  opposition  if  you  make  this  too  broad? 

Mr. 'SMITH.  No;  I  think  not. 

Secretary  LANE.  Suppose  vou  take  in  the  Mexican  War  soldiers, 
then  you  take  in  the  Cuban  War  soldiers,  and  then  you  go  back  and 
you  take  in  the  Civil  War  veterans — 

Mr.  SMITH  (interposing).  They  are  too  old  to  take  advantage  of 
it,  and  probably  only  a  few  of  the  Spanish-American  War  veterans 
would  take  advantage  of  it,  but  they  should  have  the  opportunity. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  proceed  for  a  few  "min- 
utes if  Mr.  Smith  will  excuse  me  and  let  me  go  ahead  with  a  few 
things  which  I  have  in  mind.  As  the  bill  now  stands,  and  as  it  is 
intended,  it  applies  to  the  war  with  Germany  only;  and  if  it  does  not 
do  that,  it  ought  to  be  made  that  way ;  is  that  your  opinion? 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  41 

Secretary  LANE.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Now,  this  bill  grants  an  authorization  of  $500,000,000. 
Of  course,  it  does  not  appropriate  $500,000,000,  but  it  authorizes  that 
amount,  this  not  being  an  appropriating  committee.  You  have  heard 
from  52,000  soldiers  who  have  made  direct  reply  that  they  would 
like  to  avail  themselves  of  it.  Of  course,  there  are  4.000,000  soldiers 
in  the  service  of  one  kind  and  another,  including  the  Army  and  the 
Navy  and  all.  Has  anybody  made  a  careful  estimate  as  to  what  per- 
centage of  the  4,000,000  soldiers  in  all  probability  will  desire  to 
avail  themselves  of  this  law  ? 

Secretary  LANE.  No  one  can. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Has  any  one  made  an  estimate  ? 

Secretary  LANE.  No. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Will  you  make  an  estimate  ? 

Secretary  LANE.  Xo:  I  do  not  think  there  can  be  any  approxima- 
tion made  as  to  the  number  of  men  who  would  want  to  go  into  it. 
You  will  remember  that  at  the  hearing  last  December,  either  before 
your  committee  or  before  the  Committee  on  Appropriations,  the 
doubt  was  expressed  by  some  one  as  to  the  soldiers  desiring  to  take 
up  this  kind  of  a  proposition,  and  at  that  time  we  got  up  the  little 
folder,  which  you  have  incorporated  in  your  minutes,  and  sent  it  out 
to  the  cantonments  along  the  coast  here,  just  by  way  of  finding  out 
whether  anybody  wanted  this  thing  or  not,  and  the  postal  cards 
began  to  come  in  in  reply,  and  that  service  has  not  been  extended  in 
any  way.  It  has  been  purely  tentative  to  find  out  whether  there  was 
any  considerable  proportion  who  wanted  this  thing  and  there  is  a 
very  large  proportion  who  do  want  it  positively. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Let  me  see  if  we  can  arrive  at  it  in  this  way :  You  have 
had  52,000  direct  replies.  Would  there  be  any  objection  to  your  tell- 
ing us  just  how  many  inquiries  were  sent  out  so  we  might  estimate 
what  percentage  of  them  replied  ? 

Secretary  LANE.  Yes;  I  think  250,000  of  those  little  pamphlets 
were  printed,  and  upon  the  basis  of  that  figure  40,000  were  returned 
to  us.  That  would  be  15  per  cent,  we  will  say. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Let  us  see  if  it  would.  You  had  250,000  printed,  or  a 
quarter  of  a  million,  and  40,000  returned  as  undelivered? 

Secretary  LANE.  No ;  40,000  answers  came  back. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  That  would  be  almost  one-fifth. 

Secretaary  LANE.  Not  quite;  about  16  per  cent.  Of  course,  there 
are  12,000  additional  that  are  volunteer  letters  that  have  just  come  in. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Going  on  that  basis,  if  16  per  cent  made  direct  re- 
sponse out  of  a  total  queried  of  250,000,  then  it  might  be  a  rough 
estimate,  with  some  degree  of  accuracy,  to  say  that  16  per  cent  of 
the  entire  4,000,000  might  make  reply  if  they  had  an  opportunity  to 
do  so. 

Secretary  LANE.  I  think  that  is  perhaps  as  fair  as  anything  you 
can  get. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  As  a  mathematical  proposition  that  would  be  about 
640.000.  Now,  Mr.  Secretary,  I  notice  from  reading  the  bill  that 
there  is  no  limit  or  exact  sum  fixed  which  the  homestead  and  the  im- 
provements thereon  may  cost ;  in  other  words,  there  is  no  maximum. 

Secretary  LANE.  No. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  know  it  would  simply  be  a  rough  estimate  at  best, 
but  what  would  be  a  fair  estimate  as  to  the  cost  of  a  suitable-sized 


42  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

tract,  with  suitable  improvements,  within  the  contemplation  of  this 
law? 

Secretary  LANE.  We  have  figured  about  $6.000.  We  will  prob- 
ably find  that  it  will  be  a  good  deal  more  in  some  places  and  less  in 
others. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Undoubtedly  that  would  be  true,  but  a  rough  estimate 
of  it  is  that  the  original  'purchase  and  the  improvements  thereon,, 
such  as  we  have  in  contemplation  here,  would  average  probably  about 
$6,000. 

Secretary  LAXE.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Then,  if  our  other  estimate  had  any  value  and  this 
estimate  had  any  value,  it  would  be  640,000  soldiers  multiplied  by 
$6,000  as  the  possible  sum  total  that  we  might  expend  on  this  project; 
of  course,  all  of  us  recognizing  that  that  is  a  rough  estimate. 

(Secretary  LANE.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Now,  Mr.  Secretary,  I  have  been  glancing  through 
this  bill  hurriedly,  and  there  are  a  few  things  here  that  are  trou- 
bling Members  of  the  House  who  have  talked  to  me  about  them,  and 
some  of  them  have  troubled  me  a  little,  and  if  I  may,  I  would  like 
to  have  you  answer  some  of  them.  Section  8  authorizes  a  $800  loan 
to  the  soldier,  designated  a  short-time  loan,  and  does  not  make  any 
limit  on  the  number  of  $800  loans  that  might  be  made  to  him.  Of 
course  you  have  a  discretion  which  would  control  that,  no  doubt. 

Secretary  LANE.  That  is,  at  no  time  can  he  have  more  than  $800. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  At  no  time  can  he  have  more  than  $800,  but  there  is 
no  limit  as  to  the  number  of  times,  and  I  have  wondered  if  this  might 
not  drift  into  something  like  the  placer  law  and  whether  there  might 
not  be  abuses  of  it  and  whether  there  should  not  be  some  restriction 
there.  You  can  observe  in  section  8  just  what  I  have  in  my  mind. 

Secretary  LANE.  With  that  proviso  in,  there  is  not  a  great  deal  of 
danger  in  the  thing,  and  yet  I  do  not  think  we  ought  to  go  into 
the  general  banking  business  so  far  as  these  people  are  concerned, 
except  to  give  them  a  good  start. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Then,  passing  from  that  point,  if  I  may.  a  soldier  who 
was  discharged — 

Secretary  LANE  (interposing).  I  do  not  think  it  was  contemplated 
that  this  should  be  a  revolving  fund. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  No;  I  understand  not,  but  still  they  have  in  contem- 
plation that  this  money  shall  be  covered  back  into  the  Treasury  and 
provision  is  made  all  the  way  through  for  that,  and  I  think  very 
fairly:  and  if  not.  your  regulations  would  reach  that  point.  A 
soldier  who  was  discharged  came  to  me  the  other  day  and  he  was- 
talking  to  me  about  other  things,  a  boy  I  was  acquainted  with,  and 
he  became  greatly  agitated  over  the  iact,  and  said  he  had  had  a 
talk  with  some  soldiers  and  he  thought  the  bill  might  not  have 
much  value  to  it  for  the  reason  that  you  have  this  language  on  page 
5,  lines  16  and  17,  "that  no  such  loans  shall  exceed  60  per  cent  of  the 
cost  of  the  live  stock  and  equipment  purchased,"  and  further  down 
you  require  him  to  have  5  per  cent  of  the  sale  price. 

Secretary  LANE.  That  is  the  initial  payment. 

Mr.  P^ERRIS.  You  require  him  to  start  off  with  an  initial  payment 
of  5  per  cent  ? 

Secretary  LANE.  Yes. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  43 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Now,  his  thought  was  that  the  soldier  coming  out 
•of  the  service  could  neither  furnish  40  per  cent  of  the  amount  neces- 
sary to  pin-chase  the  live  stock  he  would  be  required  to  have  to  go 
forward,  and  neither  could  he  furnish  5  per  cent  to  make  the  initial 
payment.  In  other  words,  they  say  they  come  out  of  the  service  just 
like  they  came  into  the  world — without  anything — and  they  were 
fearful  that  even  though  that  was  intended,  doubtless,  to  make  them 
manifest  their  good  faith  in  the  proposition,  his  thought  was  that 
that  would  put  it  beyond  the  reach  of  the  very  felloAvs  who  really 
needed  it. 

Secretary  LANE.  Well,  suppose  the  farm  cost  $6,000  and  you  make 
him  pay  5  per  cent  at  first;  that  is,  you  make  him  pay  $300.  Sup- 
pose he  has  worked  on  the  project  for  a  year  at  $4  a  day,  he  will  have 
several  times  $300  saved  up  if  he  has  any  gumption,  and  we  do  not 
want  fellows  who  have  not  gumption. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Then,  suppose  he  needs  a  pair  of  mules,  to  get  right 
down  to  the  practical  side  of  this  live-stock  proposition,  which  cost 
$300.  he  would  have  to  put  up  $120  and  the  Government  $180, 
which  he  thought  would  be  beyond  his  reach. 

Secretary  LANE.  I  doubt  very  much  if  that  is  so.  You  can  change 
the  percentage,  of  course,  in  any  way  you  want,  but  I  believe  in  chal- 
lenging the  best  things  in  the  boy  and  making  him  feel  from  the  start 
that  he  has  got  to  be  thrifty. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  say,  Mr.  Secretary,  that 
I  do  not  ask  these  questions  in  any  captious  way. 

Secretary  LANE.  I  understand  that,  of  course. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  But  some  of  us  will  have  to  go  on  the  floor  and  pre- 
sent this  matter,  and  I  think  it  is  just  as  well  to  have  a  clear  under- 
standing of  it.  If  I  may,  I  would  like  to  direct  your  attention  to 
section  6  for  a  moment,  where  it  seems  to  me  there  is  a  direct  con- 
flict. Let  me  read  the  first  part  of  that  paragraph : 

That  sale  prices  shall  be  fixed  with  a  view  of  repaying  the  total  cost  of  each 
project,  and  the  price  fixed  for  each  farm,  tract,  or  lot  shall  represent  as  nearly 
as  practicable  its  relative  and  comparative  selling  value. 

Now,  let  me  add  that  you  can  not  have  your  cake  and  eat  it  too. 
You  can  not  get  back  for  the  Government  what  it  costs  and  at  the 
same  time  sell  it  to  him  for  what  it  is  worth  in  all  cases.  They 
would  be  rare  cases  in  which  you  could  do  that,  and  I  am  wondering 
if  you  will  not  have  to  adopt  the  proposition  you  have  in  connection 
with  the  Reclamation  Service  of  getting  back  for  the  Government 
exactly  what  it  costs  or  else  make  it  a  straight  subsidy,  if  need  be, 
and  sell  it  for  what  it  is  worth ;  and  I  rather  suspect  the  latter  plan 
would  be  the  more  feasible  one,  because  if  the  Government  unduly 
makes  these  homes  too  expensive  and  too  costly  the  soldier  can  not 
pay  back  what  it  cost  the  Government  if  it  is  way  in  excess  of  what 
the  property  is  really  worth.  Would  you  mind  giving  us  a  word 
on  that? 

Secretary  LANE.  That  suggestion  there  arises  out  of  this  thought: 
Here  is  a  great  tract  of  land  and  here  is  a  setlement  over  here  [indi- 
cating]. There  is  some  of  that  land  which  is  remote,  and  because 
of  its  distance  from  the  central  community  and  the  distance  that 
products  have  to  be  hauled  there  is  less  value  to  that  proposition 
over  there  than  there  is  to  one  that  immediately  adjoins  this  here 
[indicating] . 


44  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Undoubtedly. 

Secretary  LANE.  And  the  idea  was  when  we  have  gotten  at  the 
value  of  the  entire  tract,  it  would  be  a  wise  thing  to  put  upon  that 
land  over  there  [indicating]  a  less  burden  than  upon  the  -10  acres 
over  here  [indicating]. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Undoubtedly,  Mr.  Secretary;  but  may  I  interrupt 
to  say  that  that  is  more  nearly  an  appraisal  question  than  it  is  a 
matter  of  securing  the  return  to  the  Government  of  what  it  costs,  or 
its  selling  value. 

Secretary  LANE.  We  wanted  to  put  it  in  so  that  the  total  amount 
of  the  cost  of  the  whole  project  would  fall  upon  this  single  project, 
and  each  particular  section  would  bear  its  particular  proportion  of 
the  proper  value  of  the  whole  project. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  think  this  language  ought  to  be  revised  a  little  in 
order  to  accomplish  that. 

Secretary  LANE.  Perhaps  so. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  could  easily  change  that. 

Secretary  LANE.  This  says :  "  its  relative  and  comparative  selling 
value." 

Mr.  VAILE,  We  might  say  as  nearly  as  practicable. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  There  is  a  little  latitude  there,  it  seems  to  me.  For 
example,  here  is  a  soldier  going  on  the  land  expecting  to  get  a 
future  home  out  of  the  project,  and  he  is  observing  the  expenditures 
of  the  Government  in  connection  with  these  tracts,  and  if  he  con- 
cludes that  the  expenditures  of  the  Government  are  going  to  be 
such  as  to  make  the  farm  cost  more  than  it  is  really  worth,  you  at 
once  kill  his  interest  in  it,  and  he  at  once  loses  interest  in  it,  even 
to  the  extent,  perhaps,  of  moving  off,  and  he  will  say  to  himself,. 
"  This  is  going  to  cost  me  more  than  I  can  afford  to  pay  for  it,"  and 
we  have  got  some  reason  for  saying  that,  because  on  some  of  the 
reclamation  projects  due  to  the  lack  of  experience  which  it  is  neces- 
sary to  acquire,  we  have  had  trouble  along  that  line,  and  I  was  won- 
dering if  we  could  not  perhaps  correct  that. 

Secretary  LANE.  We  had  that  question  up,  and  I  think  it  was 
made  originally  by  Mr.  Mondell,  in  reference  to  the  division  of  the 
lands  in  the  Shoshone  project — that  is,  that  there  should  be  a  differ- 
ence as  to  the  charges  imposed  upon  the  lands  that  were  farthest 
removed  from  the  main  portion  of  the  project.  We  did  not  see  that  it 
ought  to  be  done,  and  it  is  a  difficult  thing  to  do,  but  I  believe  that 
machinery  can  be  arranged  by  which  it  can  be  done. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  If  you  invest  the  Government  with  full  power  to 
appraise  and  apportion  the  costs,  and  then  if  you  were  given  here 
authority  to  provide  that  in  no  event  should  the  sum  exacted  from 
the  soldier  who  entered  upon  the  project  exceed  its  selling  value, 
you  would  have  an  assurance  given  the  soldier  that  he  would  not 
otherwise  get. 

Secretary  LANE.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  live  right  at  a  military  fort,  and  they  had  in  effect 
there  this  cost-plus  10  per  cent  contract  plan.  It  might  have  been 
the  best  thing  that  could  be  done  at  that  time,  and  probably  was,  but 
there  were  a  good  many  abuses  under  it.  I  think  that  the  soldier, 
in  order  to  have  this  relief  really  secured  to  him,  ought  to  be  sure 
that  at  no  time  should  he  ever  be  compelled  to  pay  for  the  project 


HOMES   FOE  SOLDIERS.  45 

which  lie  had  selected  or  which  had  been  apportioned  to  him  by 
this  commission  a  price  that  would  exceed  what  the  actual  value  of 
it  was.  If  the  Government  paid  a  little  more  for  the  land,  then  let 
that  be  a  straight  subsidy  to  the  soldier. 

Secretary  LANE.  I  see  no  objection  to  that  kind  of  qualification. 

.Mr.  FERRIS.  There  would  be  some  objection  in  the  House  to  this 
on  the  part  of  those  who  closely  scrutinize  appropriations.  They 
might  say  that  it  would  make  a  drain  on  the  Treasury,  but  for  my 
own  part  I  would  prefer  to  have  a  drain  upon  the  Treasury  and 
make  it  certain  that  the  soldier  in  taking  the  farm  would  not  have 
to  pay  for  it  more  than  it  was  worth.  Now,  page  2,  lines  IT  to  22, 
provides  for  your  commission  to  handle  this  estate.  In  other  words, 
it  provides,  first,  a  representative  of  the  governor  of  the  State  in 
which  the  lands  are  located;  second,  an  appraiser  designated  by 
the  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board,  and,  next,  the  Secretary.  By  "  Sec- 
retary" I  presume  you  mean  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior? 

Secretary  LANE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FEKRIS.  So  that  you  have  a  commission  made  up,  first,  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior;  second,  some  commissioner  appointed  by 
the  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board ;  and,  third,  a  commissioner  appointed 
by  the  goA'ernor  of  the  State.  That  would  be  the  commission  to 
handle  this  large  undertaking. 

Secretary  LANE.  No;  that  relates  to  the  price.  The  bill  provides 
that  "  No  lands  shall  be  acquired,  however,  unless  the  price  to  be  paid, 
and  the  conditions  under  which  they  are  to  be  acquired,  shall  be  ap- 
proved," etc.,  by  this  commission.  That  relates  only  to  the  price. 
That  is  done  in  order  to  make  sure  that  they  will  get  the  land  for 
as  little  as  possible. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  After  the  land  is  acquired  the  administration  of  it 
reverts  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior? 

Secretary  LANE.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Secretary,  referring  to  the  disposition  of  this  land 
after  the  projects  have  been  organized  and  opened,  is  it  your  thought 
that,  for  instance,  in  the  case  of  a  project  costing  $1,000,000,  you 
would  divide  it  up  and  then  sell  it  to  the  soldiers  for  seven  or  eight 
hundred  thousand  dollars  or  $500,000? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  If  that  is  all  it  is  worth,  that  is  exactly  what  I  would 
do.  This  bill  is  rather  hazy  on  that  subject,  and  I  think  it  ought  to 
be  made  clear.  The  other  theory  would  be  that  in  all  instances  you 
must  get  from  the  soldier  exactly  what  it  cost.  That  is  one  plan, 
and  some  very  strong  friends  of  the  Treasury  would  advocate  that. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  soldier  is  going  to  say  that  if  there  should 
l)e  any  misadministration,  if  there  should  be  any  extravagance,  if 
there  should  be  any  lack  of  experience,  or  if  there  should  be  any  mis- 
takes, or  if  the  cost  should  climb  too  high,  you  will  be  taking  it  out 
of  the  soldier  instead  of  the  Government.  I  would  prefer  that  you 
take  it  out  of  the  Government. 

Secretary  LANE.  I  do  not  think  there  is  much  danger  of  that  con- 
dition arising.  Of  course,  there  is  one  possibility  at  the  beginning  of 
the  project  and  that  is  that  it  often  looks  poorly.  Take,  for  instance, 
the  Minidoka  project,  which,  when  I  came  into  office,  looked  badly, 
and  yet  it  is  as  prosperous  now  as  any  part  of  the  United  States. 
Six  years  ago,  if  you  had  asked  what  is  the  selling  value  of  this 


46  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

property,  it  might  have  been  said  that  it  would  not  have  cleared  the 
amount  put  into  it;  but  to-day  you  can  not  get  that  land  without 
paying  tAvice  as  much  as  they  put  in  it.  We  have  had  two  or  three 
misfits,  which  were  started  under  a  misapprehension,  but  I  do  not 
know  of  any  project  that  we  could  not  .sell  out  to-day  for  a  great 
deal  more  than  the  money  we  put  into  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  On  the  other  hand,  suppose  the  Government  spent 
$1,000,000  on  this  project,  which  is  all  equipped  and  is  ready  to  open. 
In  other  words,  I  presume  it  would  not  be  opened  until  it  is  all 
ready  with  the  land  subdivided  and  classified  so  as  to  fix  its  relative 
price,  and,  as  the  Secretary  said,  those  tracts  close  to  the  center 
would  be  more  valuable  than  the  far-away  lots.  Those  far-away  lots 
would  be  less  valuable.  Now,  suppose  you  really  and  truly  appraised 
and  estimated  the  value  of  that  project  ready  to  open  to  the  soldier 
and  found  that  it  was  worth  $2,000,000.  You  would  not  want  the 
soldier  to  pay  the  extra  $1,000,000  would  you  ? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  No;  I  would  make  a  maximum  for  him,  and  would 
say  that  in  no  case  shall  the  sum  exacted  from  the  soldier  be  in  ex- 
cess of  its  fair  market  price  or  value  at  the  time  he  receives  it.  Then 
the  soldier  would  be  sure  of  what  he  was  getting. 

Mr.  RAKKR.  You  would  not  in  any  instance  ask  the  soldier  to  pay 
more  than  the  actual  cost  of  the  project,  would  you? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  As  this  stands  you  could  do  it. 

Secretary  LANE.  No;  it  does  not  do  it  as  it  stands.  It  provides 
that  it  shall  be  not  more  than  the  cost. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Not  more  than  the  cost,  but  that  might  be  more  than 
it  was  worth. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  practically  nine-tenths  of 
the  countries  of  the  world  have  enacted  soldiers'  settlement  laws  re- 
quiring either  that  the  soldier  shall  have  been  an  agriculturalist  or 
that  he  shall  enter  upon  training  along  that  line  in  an  agricultural 
college  or  training  station,  or  that  he  shall  be  placed  with  a  practical 
farmer  for  training  before  he  is  assigned  to  one  of  these  tracts,  I 
would  like  to  ask  whether  you  contemplate  anything  of  that  kind 
in  the  administration  of  this  act? 

Secretary  LANE.  We  do. 

Mr.  BAER.  Mr.  Secretary,  I  think  you  are  familiar  with  the  bill 
I  introduced  in  regard  to  schools  and  educational  work  to  be  estab- 
lished in  order  that  people  may  have  the  necessary  preliminary  train- 
ing for  their  work.  I  am  going  to  take  that  matter  up  with  the 
committee  and  see  if  that  system  can  be  worked  into  this  proposition. 
I  think  it  would  'be  impracticable  to  take  men  who  are  clerks  in 
stores  right  now  and  put  them  on  farm  projects  without  any  pre- 
vious experience  in  farming. 

Secretary  LANE.  I  would  say  that  the  wise  thing  to  do  would  be 
to  see  that  each  man  before  he  got  his  farm  had  some  theoretical 
and  practical  farming  experience.,  and  that  can  be  effected  to  some  ex- 
tent while  the  men  are  upon  the  projects,  and  it  can  be  supplemented 
by  definite  courses  that  will  be  given  at  particular  times  in  agri- 
cultural schools.  We  have  taken  this  up  with  the  agricultural  col- 
leges of  the  country,  and,  if  this  bill  had  passed  at  the  last  session,  it 
was  our  expectation  that  those  boys  who  reported  to  us  would  take 
special  courses  in  the  agricultural  colleges  during  the  summer.  We 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  47 

have  already  had  that  matter  up  with  the  agricultural  schools,  but 
it  is  too  late' to  undertake  it  this  year,  because  we  would  have  to  upset 
their  curriculums  now  in  order  to  do  it. 

Mr.  XICHOLS.  Mr.  Secretary,  of  the  answers  you  received  to  the 
pamphlets  you  sent  out,  what  percentage  came  from  soldiers  who 
went  forth  from  the  cities? 

Secretary  LANE.  I  should  say  perhaps  55  per  cent.  It  was  just 
about  one-half. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Over  three-fourths  of  them  had  had  some  agricultural 
experience '. 

Secretary  LANE.  That  is,  the  boys  said  that  they  had  worked  on 
farms. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  do  not  intend  to  enact  into  this  legislation  that 
a  man  without  previous  experience  in  farming  can  not  go  out  and 
pull  off  his  coat  and  put  on  farm  clothes  and  go  to  work  without 
some  previous  farm  education? 

Secretary  LANE.  We  want  to  make  it  possible  for  him  to  get  that 
training  under  this  system,  and  we  can  do  it  with  the  cooperation  of 
the  State  agricultural  schools. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  mean  to  help  him  in  advance,  but  not  to  retard 
him? 

Secretary  LANE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  think  that  nearly  every  other  country  has  pro- 
vided that,  during  the  period  of  this  training,  where  training  is 
necessary,  the  soldier  shall  obtain  a  living  wage.  Is  any  such  thing 
as  that  contemplated  in  this  bill  ?  That  is  to  say,  during  the  period 
of  his  training,  whether  on  the  farm  or  in  an  agricultural  training 
station,  practically  every  law,  I  believe,  that  has  been  enacted  in 
other  countries  provides  that  he  shall  have  a  living  wage  while  in 
training. 

Secretary  LANE,  That  has  not  been  taken  into  consideration  in  the 
drafting  of  this  bill,  but  in  the  conferences  that  we  have  had  with  the 
agriculturists  and  the  agricultural  professors  and  presidents 
throughout  the  country  we  found  that  it  was  a  perfectly  practical 
thing  to  give  these  men  the  kind  of  theoretical  training  that  they 
ought  to  have  while  they  are  on  the  project  itself.  We  have  some 
rather  distinguished  instances  of  men  with  very  slight  practical 
knowledge  of  farming  making  a  great  success  of  it  on  some  of  our 
irrigation  projects.  We  do  not  want  to  bar  a  man  with  good  muscles 
and  good  brain,  but  we  do  want  to  bar  the  man  who  has  no  aptitude 
for  farming. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Would  it  not  be  a  good  idea  and  a  practical  prop- 
osition for  agriculturalists  to  be  assigned  to  each  particular  project 
to  live  with  those  men  of  limited  experience,  and  thereby  give  them 
their  training  at  the  time  that  they  are  developing  their  tracts? 

Secretary  LANE.  That  is  one  of  the  plans  we  have  thoroughly  well 
in  hand,  l^hat  is  in  contemplation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Under  section  5  there  is  a  provision  that  prefer- 
ence shall  be  given  with  a  view  of  safeguarding  the  settler  and  the 
United  States.  I  wish  3*011  would  explain  what  will  be  the  operation 
of  that  section. 

Secretary  LANE.  That  is  a  rather  broad  provision  which  has  for 
its  purpose  just  what  I  have  stated,  and  that  is  that  if  there  should 
133319—19 1 


48  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

be  any  case  where  men  are  manifestly  taking  these  things  up  in  a 
speculative  way,  and  not  for  the  purpose  of  making  themselves  into 
real  farmers,  there  should  be  some  right  of  excluding  them  from  the 
benefits  of  the  act,  and  that  we  should  have  a  power  of  rejection. 
That  exists  in  Australia  and  in  Canada. 

Mr.  BAER.  The  point  I  had  in  mind  is  one  that  our  North  Dakota 
Legislature  has  taken  care  of.  Of  course,  these  men  who  go  into  these 
projects  do  not  want  to  get  hurt  after  they  have  invested  two  or 
three  years'  work  upon  them.  Suppose  a  man  has  lived  for  live  years 
on  .a  project  and  becomes  discouraged :  In  that  event,  do  you  think 
it  would  be  advisable  to  have  an  arrangement  whereby  he  could  re- 
cover his  equities  in  it?  That  is,  that  he  should  recover  the  original 
cost,  and  not  the  increased  increment.  I  do  not  mean  the  value  of 
the  land,  but  the  original  cost  to  him.  Suppose  he  decides,  for  in- 
stance, that  he  is  not  fit  for  the  land  ( 

Secretary  LANE.  Of  course,  after  a  man  goes  on  the  land  we  would 
dislike  extremely  to  eject  him.  I  do  not  think  that  is  in  contem- 
plation, and  my  idea  was  that  there  should  be  certain  tests  made 
before  he  went  on  the  land.  Now,  you  want  to  have  the  man  taken 
care  of  if  he  does  not  make  a  success  and  wants  to  get  off  ? 

Mr.  BAER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  other  words,  you  would  place  a  premium  upon  in- 
competency. 

Mr.  BAER.  I  want  the  Government  to  make  an  arrangement  cover- 
ing his  equities  in  the  land,  so  that  he  will  not  lose  all  of  his  time. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  May  I  suggest  that  within  the  first  10  years  a  trans- 
fer can  be  made  with  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior, 
so  that  you  might  proceed  along  the  line  of  a  refinquishment  pro- 
ceeding and  allow  him  to  recoup  his  losses.  After  that  there  seems 
to  be  no  limitation  upon  selling  at  all. 

Mr.  BAER.  In  our  State,  under  the  legislation  recently  passed,  they 
can  buy  the  farm,  but  if  at  any  time  they  want  to  leave  the  farm  the 
State  takes  an  interest  in  it  in  trying  to  sell  it  and  to  see  that  the 
soldier  gets  the  amount  that  he  has  already  put  into  it  in  proportion 
to  the  original  cost,  and  not  the  increased  value.  Now,  there  is  an- 
other question  I  would  like  to  ask :  From  your  long  and  broad  expe- 
rience, and  speaking  generally,  do  you  not  think  that  it  would  be 
more  practicable  and  advisable  to  develop  some  of  those  .eastern  lands 
near  the  centers  of  population,  where  they  will  find  good  markets  for 
their  produce,  instead  of  going  out  and  reclaiming  arid  lands  in  some 
of  the  other  States? 

Secretary  LAXE.  I  do. 

Mr.  BAER.  I  am  very  much  interested  in  seeing  the  market  situa- 
tion taken  care  of.  Now,  if  they  are  like  they  are  in  eastern  Montana 
and  western  North  Dakota — and  I  am  not  casting  any  reflection  upon 
any  State — the  situation  would  be  bad.  Those  farmers  have  become 
discouraged  because  they  are  so  far  away  from  markets,  and  eventu- 
ally they  will  have  to  get  off  of  those  lands.  They  can  not  make  good 
on^them.  If  you  take  these  men  away  out  where  you  must  develop 
railroads,  the  difficulties  will  be  great.  I  think  it  would  be  practi- 
cable to  try  to  fertilize  these  lands  right  here  near  the  great  industrial 
centers. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  49 

Mr.  SMITH.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  farmers  on  the  reclaimed  arid 
lands  in  the  West  are  more  prosperous  than  those  who  live  in  any 
other  section  of  the  country  ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  If  this  bill  is  to  stop  the  development  of  the  West,  it 
would  seem  to  me 

Secretary  LANE  (interposing).  Mr.  Baer's  point  is  a  perfectly  good 
one.  There  has  got  to  be  some  artificial  incentive  to  bring  about  the 
reestablishment  of  people  all  around  upon  their  own  lands  where 
they  have  markets  near  at  hand.  You  will  find  that  sentiment  very 
strong  in  States  like  Maine,  Massachusetts,  New  York,  New  Jersey,. 
Maryland,  and  all  down  the  coast. 

Mr.  BAER.  Now,  I  take  it  for  granted  that  the  reason  they  do  not 
develop  the  land  is  because  it  is  worn  out,  and  it  ought  to  be  refer- 
tilized.  The  point  is  that  here  in  Virginia  and  Maryland  they  have 
56  inches  of  rainfall,  which  absolutely  insures  a  crop,  whereas  in 
North  Dakota  we  have  14  or  15  inches,  and  it  is  a  gamble  from  the 
1st  of  June  to  the  middle  of  July  as  to  whether  or  not  we  will  get  a 
crop.  If  we  do  not  get  rain,  we  do  not  get  a  crop.  With  the  exception 
of  the  irrigation  projects,  I  think  it  would  be  advisable  for  us  to  con- 
sider the  fertilizing  of  eastern  land  in  a  great  degree,  in  order  to  get 
nearer  these  centers  of  population,  so  as  to  reduce  the  cost  of  living. 
That  is  the  whole  thing  in  a  nutshell.  At  Bridgeport  and  other 
places  they  are  paying  58  cents  per  pound  for  round  steak,  and  it 
costs  only  25  cents  per  pound  in  Fargo.  That  is  because  we  have 
cattlemen  out  there  who  slaughter  the  cattle  right  on  the  ground  ta 
compete  with  the  local  people.  It  is  not  so  much  the  packers  as  it  i& 
the  local  people  who  charge  these  exorbitant  prices  in  Washington 
and  throughout  the  East.  I  think  it  is  the  hope  of  the  Nation  to 
resuscitate  these  eastern  lands.  I  think  that  these  boys  in  the  East 
would  as  soon  work  in  Maryland  as  in  Colorado. 

Secretary  LANE.  About  50  per  cent  of  them  want  to  go  to  their 
own  home  States. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  want  to  ask  the  Secretary  a  question.  Congress  has 
been  splitting  hairs  and  microscopically  looking  to  see  whether  or 
not  some  sentence  in  a  bill  could  be  perverted.  That  has  been  done 
for  a  year  now  when  we  ought  to  have  been  enacting  this  law.  I 
wish  you  would  give  the  committee,  and  especially  the  new  members 
of  the  committee,  a  resume  of  what  you  have  stated  this  country  is 
expecting  to  do  as  compared  with  what  the  other  English-speaking 
countries  are  doing  for  their  returned  soldiers.  I  want  to  say  this, 
that  they  are  not  splitting  hairs  over  the  proposition,  as  I  hope  this 
committee  will  not  do.  Will  you  give  us  an  idea  of  the  comparative 
relief  or  development  that  has  been  provided? 

Secretary  LANE.  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  give  you  definitely  the 
figures. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  in  the  Secretary's  report. 

Secretary  LANE.  Canada,  Australia,  and  New  Zealand  undertook 
legislatioiTof  this  kind  while  the  war  was  still  on.  Canada  was  even 
farsighted  enough  to  start  agricultural  schools  for  many  of  the  men. 
while  they  were  still  in  the  trenches  in  France.  To-day,  according  to 
a  letter  I  received  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  in  Canada,  a 
man  can  get  $4,500  to  apply  anywhere  that  he  wishes,  provided  it 


•50  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

has  the  approval  of  the  department,  upon  the  purchase  of  a  piece  of 
land,  which  can  be  supplemented  by  a  loan  of  $2,500  for  the  improve- 
ment of  that  piece  of  land,  and  he  can  supplement  that  with 
$1,000  or  $1  j500  in  a  loan  for  the  purchase  of  stock  and  equip- 
ment. That  is  just  an  illustration  of  the  appreciation  shown  by  them 
of  that  situation. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Have  you  got  that  law  and  can  you  insert  it  in  the 
record  ? 

Secretary  LANE.  Yes ;  I  think  it  is  in  the  record.  In  England,  as 
you  know,  Parliament  has  given  consideration  to  this  proposition, 
and  a  large  amount  of  money  is  available  for  the  purchase  of 
leaseholds  and  for  the  building  of  farm  houses  for  their  people. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  They  already  Tiave  these  laws.  They  have  not  been 
quibbling  around  in  the  consideration  of  the  bills.  They  already 
have  them  on  their  statute  books  and  they  are  furnishing  that  relief. 

Secretary  LANE.  Of  course,  they  saw  the  necessity  for  it  long  be- 
fore we  did.  There  was  more  urgency. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  see  that  in  April,  1918,  France  enacted  legislation 
providing  for  the  purchase  and  resale  to. soldiers  and  to  civilians  \\lio 
had  suffered  as  a  result  of  the  war  tracts  of  land  not  to  exceed  $2,500 
in  value,  repayable  in  25  years,  I  believe,  at  1  per  cent  interest. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  My  thought  is  this,  that  while  we  are  quibbling — and 
I  think  this  committee  does  examine  things  microscopically — while 
we  quibble  over  little  things  we  do  not  get  the  results  that  the  Xation 
expects  us  to  get.  I  hope  we  will  submerge  our  little  individual 
ideas  about  some  provision  in  the  interest  of  getting  results  for  the 
American  people,  for  the  development  of  the  country,  and  for  the 
relief  of  the  returning  soldiers. 

Mr.  TILLMAN.  I  take  it  that  you  are  not  in  favor  of  the  French 
system  of  living  in  villages.  XOAV,  is  not  that  preferable  to  the  Ameri- 
can system  under  which  farmers  live  far  removed  from  one  another? 
Does  not  the  French  sj'stem  in  a  large  measure  solve  the  school  prob- 
lem, the  transportation-to-school  problem,  the  church  problem,  and 
other  social  problems  that  we  in  America  have  suffered  from  for 
many  years  by  reason  of  living  so  far  apart? 

Secretary  LANE.  It  would. 

Mr.  TILLMAN.  Is  it  not  preferable,  in  a  modified  way,  to  our  sys- 
tem under  which  farmers  live  one  and  a  half  miles  apart?  Take, 
for  instance,  the  Dakotas :  The  farmers  up  there  have  640-acre  farms, 
and  they  tell  me  that  many  of  the  farm  women  go  insane  because 
they  have  no  means  of  associating  with  their  neighbors.  Many  of 
the  girls  go  to  the  towns  because  of  the  lack  of  social  advantages.  I 
visited  a  French  settlement  last  year,  and  I  rather  liked  it  as  com- 
pared with  our  system  of  living  in  remote  places  and  far  apart. 

Secretary  LANE.  I  sought  to  find  out  somewhat  about  that  by  hav- 
ing one  or  two  of  our  men  meet  men  in  the  cantonments  and  talk 
with  them  about  that,  and  the  idea  is  very  strong  in  their  minds  that 
the  home  should  be  upon  the  land,  but  we  want  to  get  a  compromise 
between  the  French  village  and  the  isolated  farm  by  which  these 
lands  are  all  laid  out  writh  reference  to  a  central  community,  so  that 
the  people  will  be  gathered  closely  together  and  connected  up  with 
good  roads  and  telephones,  and  be  near  the  schools.  I  think  we  can 
get  the  primary  advantages  of  the  French  system,  and  at  the  same 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  51 

time  obtain  all  the  best  advantages  of  the  American  system  of  farm 
Houses. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Just  what  particular  feature  of  the  French  system 
would  you  adopt? 

Secretary  LANE.  I  would  take  simph7  the  central  settlement,  with 
its  school,  its  church,  its  garage,  its  bank,  and  post  office.  Then  I 
would  have  these  farms  to  radiate  out  from  them,  so  that  they  would 
be  brought  close  together.  Then  I  would  have  all  the  community 
activities  centered  in  that  central  place. 

Mr.  TILLMAN.  I  thought  you  were  opposed  to  that.  You  say  that 
some  of  the  boys  coming  from  abroad  did  not  like  the  French  system. 

Secretary  LANE.  They  do  not  like  it  in  so  far  as  it  meant  the  homes. 
in  the  village  away  from  the  land. 

Mr.  VAILE.  How  many  French  farmers  own  flivvers? 

Secretarj*  LANE.  We  own  in  this  country  5,000,000  automobiles,- 
which  is  more  than  is  owned  in  all  of  the  rest  of  the  world  put  to- 
gether. 

Mr.  VAILE.  That  fact  alone  makes  a  great  difference  in  considering 
the  advisability  of  adopting  the  French  system,  does  it  not? 

Secretary  LANE.  Yes;  but  they  ought  to  be  near  together  for  the 
sake  of  the  women  and  primarily  for  the  sake  of  the  children. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Each  French  town  centers  around  a  main  street  which 
runs  right  up  and  down.  Each  man  has  his  home  and  his  barn  in 
the  same  house,  and  he  has  his  pigpen,  chicken  pen,  and  manure  pile 
in  the  front  yard  right  on  the  main  street.  That  is  a  typical  French 
town  or  center.  In  Italy,  this  has  been  in  operation  for  2,000  years, 
and  they  are  living  in  tents  or  wickie-ups  like  the  Indianes  are  living 
today  in  California.  I  hope  that  this  country  will  never  get  into 
that  situation. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  would  like  to  ask  one  more  question :  Should  there 
not  be  a  value  placed  upon  the  homestead  unit  with  some  latitude 
going  above  and  below,  or  should  there  not  be  some  limitation  on 
the  amount  that  should  go  for  an  individual  homestead  ? 

Secretary  LANE.  Do  you  mean  a  maximum  amount  inserted  in  the 
bill? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Yes,  sir;  either  that  way  or  some  other  way.  For 
instance,  have  a  homestead  at  $5,000  or  $2,500,  with  a  proviso  that 
the  Secretary  may  in  some  cases  go  beyond  that  by  a  certain  per- 
centage. In  other  words,  as  the  bill  now  stands,  there  is  no  minimum 
or  maximum,  or  exact  basis  in  dollars  and  cents  for  one  of  these 
homesteads.  I  think  the  bill  will  be  subject  to  some  criticism  on  the 
floor  without  that,  and  it  will  probably  make  it  hard  to  get  it  through 
if  we  can  not  arrive  at  some  estimate  of  what  it  will  cost. 

Secretary  LANE.  I  think  the  wise  thing  would  be  to  make  a  maxi- 
mum estimate  going  pretty  high,  but  possibly  you  would  have  as 
much  criticism  of  that  on  the  theory  that  by  "Government  develop- 
ment you  would  make  them  all  maximum  farms. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  There  is  something  in  that.  Still,  as  the  bill  now 
stands,  there  is  no  maximum  and  no  minimum  for  these  individual 
allotments. 

Secretary  LANE.  That  is  a  matter  of  judgment  with  this  committee 
as  to  whether  it  is  advisable  to  have  that  in  so  as  to  get  it  through. 
So  far  as  we  are  concerned,  we  will  try  to  make  the  farm  one  that 
will  support  a  family.  We  will  not  want  to  extend  it  any  more  than 
is  necessary. 


52  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Should  there  not  be  a  minimum  and  maximum  acreage 
as  well  as  a  minimum  and  maximum  priced- 
Secretary  LANE.  No;  because  we  have  no  trouble  on  that  score 
under  the  reclamation  projects,  except  where  we  have  made  a  mini- 
mum that  they  thought  ought  to  be  a  great  deal  smaller  than  it  ought 
to  be. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Of  course,  different  jurisdictions  would  require  a  dif- 
ferent acreage  and  a  different  value  as  between,  say,  600  and  640 
.acres,  or  $2,000  and  $5,000. 

Secretary  LANE.  There  would  be  no  objection  to  that  at  all  if  there 
was  any  such  latitude. 

Mr.  BAER.  I  think  it  would  be  perfectly  impracticable  to  have  a 
maximum  average  individually,  but  you  could  have  a  maximum  aver- 
age for  the  whole  project.  One  farm  might  cost  $10,000  to  improve 
it,  but  it  might  not  be  any  better  than  a  farm  that  cost  $2,000. 

Secretary  LANE.  I  understand  that  that  is  Mr.  Ferris's  idea,  that 
there  should  be  an  average  on  the  project,  but  not  on  the  individual 
piece. 

(Thereupon,  at  12  o'clock  noon,  the  committee  adjourned  until  to- 
morrow, Thursday,  May  29,  1919.) 


COMMITTEE  ON  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS, 

HOUSE  or  REPRESENTATIVES, 

May  29,  1919. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Nicholas  J.  Sinnott 
(chairman)  presiding. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  FRANK  W.  MONDELL,  A  REPRESENTATIVE 
IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  WYOMING— Resumed. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Mondell  will  resume  his  statement  which  was 
interrupted  yesterday. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  care  to  take  the  time  of  the 
•committee  further,  but  am  at  the  service  of  the  committee  to  answer 
any  questions  the  members  desire  to  ask.  Preliminary  to  that,  there 
is  just  one  point  that  has  been  referred  to,  I  understand,  which  per- 
haps it  might  be  well  to  discuss  for  just  a  moment. 

A  query  has  been  raised  as  to  the  effect  of  legislation  of  this  char- 
acter upon  farm  labor,  its  demand  and  supply.  This  is  a  country  of 
100,000,000  people.  Just  how  many  folks  there  are  engaged  as  em- 
ployees or  laborers  on  farms,  I  do  not  know,  but,  in  the  first  place,  the 
provisions  of  this  act,  helpful  as  we  hope  they  will  be;  the  operations 
under  the  act,  extensive  as  they  will  be:  and  large  as  will  be  the  num- 
ber of  people  to  whom  it  will  give  employment,  can  not  in  the  nature 
of  things,  in  a  country  so  large  as  ours,  with  so  enormous  a  populat  ion, 
a  large  portion  of  which  is  engaged  in  agriculture,  have  a  .very  con- 
siderable effect  one  way  or  the  other  on  the  supply  and  demand  for 
agricultural  labor. 

If  it  has  any  material  effect  in  that  direction,  it  will  be  to  encourage 
men  to  seek  employment  on  farms,  because  the  discussion  of  a  pro- 
gram of  this  kind,  as  a  national  policy,  the  fact  of  the  Government's 
embarking  on  such  an  enterprise  will  tend  to  turn  men's  minds  to- 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  53 

tvard  farming  and  farm  homes  and  be  helpful  in  inclining  men  to 
seek  farm  employment ;  not  necessarily  on  these  farms,  but  on  farms 
everywhere.  You  can  not  discuss  a  matter  of  this  kind  extensively, 
widely,  and  general!}-,  as  it  will  be  discussed,  partly  through  the  in- 
fluence of  this  proposed  legislation,  in  a  country  like  ours,  without 
the  effect  of  turning  men's  minds  and  inclination  toward  that  kind 
of  enterprise,  and  that  form  of  employment.  So  that  whatever  effect 
it  may  have,  it  will  tend  at  least  to  increase  the  supply  of  men  and  the 
number  of  men  inclined  to  seek  employment  on  the  farms. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Mondell,  we  could  hardly  afford  to  take  the 
position  that  by  withholding  necessary  legislation,  this  committee 
would  be  willing  to  sentence  these  soldiers  who  formerty  were  farm 
laborers  to  a  life  as  a  farm  laborer.  Do  you  catch  that  point? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  do  not  think  I  would  state  it  just  as  the  chair- 
man does,  because  I  do  not  think  that  would  be  a  sentence  in  the 
sense  in  which  we  ordinarily  use  the  word.  The  happiest  days  1 
can  remember,  and  I  think  the  healthiest,  were  the  days  when  I  stood 
between  the  handles  of  a  plow. 

Mr.  SNELL.  But  you  wanted  to  get  away  from  it? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  can  not  remember  any  greater  joy  in  my  life  than 
my  days  on  a  farm  or  ranch. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  did  not  want  to  follow  it  all  your  days? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  can  not  remember  a  minute  of  my"  life  as  perfect 
in  content  as  when,  behind  a  good  team  and  a  good,  well-polished 
plow.  I  was  engaged  in  turning  the  stubble.  It  is  the  height  of  con- 
tent and  satisfaction.  You  do  not  sentence  anybody  when  you  in- 
cline them  or  urge  them  to  that  kind  of  employment.  The  next  best 
thing  to  owning  a  farm  is  to  work  on  one. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Mr.  Mondell,  I  think  the  thought  of  the  chairman  is 
that  you  do  not  want  to  do  anything  to  take  away  the  hope  of  on® 
of  those  men  of  owning  that  farm  himself  and  owning  that  team 
himself. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Yes.  Now,  getting  to  the  chairman's  thought,  it 
is  that  it  has  been  suggested  that  through  this  legislation  we  might 
hold  out  a  hope  to  a  man  who  has  been  working  on  a  farm  and  who 
might,  other  than  for  this  legislation,  continue  to  work  on  that 
farm,  that  through  this  legislation  his  farm  work  might  ripen  into 
farm  ownership  and  therefore  take  as  a  laborer  from  the  farm. 
Even  though  that  might  be  true,  it  should  not,  of  course,  deter  us 
from  the  enactment  of  the  legislation,  because  it  would  be  a  most 
excellent  thing.  We  would  hope,  of  course,  that  if  through  this  legis- 
lation a  farmer  might  lose  a  farm  hand,  that  the  hope  wTe  are  hold- 
ing out — the  encouragement  we  are  giving  to  farm  work  and  farm 
ownership — would  raise  up  another  farm  helper  to  take  the  place  of 
that  man.  and  I  think  it  would.  Wherever  you  might  take  a  man 
away  from  labor  on  farms  now  developed  through  legislation  of 
this* kind,  I  think  through  the  effect  of  the  legislation,  direct  and 
indirect,  and  the  discussion  under  it,  you  would  incline  the  minds  of 
two  men  or  more  toward  taking  up  farm  work. 

Certainly  there  is  nothing  that  we  can  do  that  would  be  more 
useful  and  helpful  to  the  country  than  that,  because  the  more  men 
we  can  get  away  from  the  bright  lights,  and  the  artificial  conditions 
of  town  life,  tremendously  attractive  as  they  are  in  these  days,  back 
to  the  soil,  to  the  healthy  conditions  of  life  close  to  nature,  and  on 


54  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

the  soil,  the  better  it  is  going  to  be  for  the  country.  Every  nation 
that  has  ever  prospered  has  been  compelled  to  make  it  a  part  of  its 
purpose  to  legislate  along  lines  that  will  tend  to  incline  men  to  fann 
work  and  employment  and  farm  owning. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Mondell,  in  that  connection,  may  I  ask  you  a  few 
questions  at  this  time.  I  listened  with  a  good  deal  of  interest  to  your 
description  of  the  farm  boy's  life.  I  suppose  most  of  us  have  been 
there  ourselves.  Of  course,  that  is  more  of  an  expression  than  a  fact, 
and  I  suppose  many  of  us  have  done  the  same  thing,  but  while  we 
are  walking  between  plow  handles  and  while  an  uncle  who  had  not 
any  relatives  or  any  one  else  to  leave  his  property  to  said,  "  Here, 
John,  if  you  will  stay  with  me  this  is  all  yours  when  I  pass  away," 
but,  nevertheless,  the  boy  keeps  thinking  as  he  walks  between  those 
plow  handles  and  other  things  that  he  would  like  to  branch  out  a 
little  for  himself. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  And  be  a  Congressman. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  do  a  fewr  other  things  that  other  people  have  done 
and  advance  himself. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  think  I  would  still  be  between  the  plow  handles 
if  it  had  not  been  for  some  very  unusual  droughts  and  a  long  siege 
of  grasshopper  devastation. 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  only  way  I  got  away  from  between  the  plow 
handles,  notwithstanding  the  objection  of  my  uncle,  was  to  save  my 
money  and  raise  a  few  cattle  and  horses,  and  go  to  school,  notwith- 
standing the  promise  of  a  gift  of  two  farms  if  I  had  stayed.  Maybe 
I  would  have  been  better  off  if  I  had  stayed  on  the  farm.  Now,  that 
same  thing  is  found  right  here  in  this  bill,  and  I  want  your  best 
judgment  on  it  and  also  the  judgment  of  the  committee.  It  is  in 
section  7,  page  4,  where  you  tie  the  man  down  forever  to  this  farm, 
and  it  is  a  change  in  every  principle  that  we  have  had  as  Americans 
in  the  disposition  of  property. 

It  first  provides  that  no  contract,  transfer,  or  assignment  or  mort- 
gage or  lease  shall  be  made  within  10  years  without  the  approval  of 
the  Secretary  of  the  Interior. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  On  what  page  is  that? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Page  4  of  the  Mondell  bill,  section  7,  and  then  follows 
this  language,  "  No  transfer,  assignment,  mortgage,  or  lease  of  any 
right,  title,  or  interest  held  under  a  contract  of  sale  shall  be  valid 
at  any  time  without  the  approval  of  the  Secretary." 

Is  it  the  purpose  of  this  language  to  prevent  the  man,  after  he 
gets  his  certificate  of  purchase,  or  makes  his  payments  whereby  he 
gets  a  patent,  from  being  in  position  to  sell  his  property  freely  and 
voluntarily  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Judge  Raker,  will  you  permit  me  to  call  Mr.  Mon- 
dell's  attention  to  that  language  and  to  a  thought  which  has  oc- 
curred to  me?  That  paragraph,  beginning  at  the  bottom  of  page  1. 
is  an  absolute  prohibition  upon  a  transfer  at  any  time,  and  the  first 
paragraph  seems  to  indicate  that  he  may  transfer  it  after  the 
10-year  period.  There  is  a  prohibition  for  a  period  of  10  years. 
and  afterwards  a  prohibition  for  all  time  without  the  consent  of 
the  Secretary.  I  did  not  know  whether  there  was  any  inconsistency 
there  or  not. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow  me,  I  do  not  think  the 
language  is  inconsistent,  although  the  members  of  the  committee 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  55 

must  judge  of  that.  The  first  provision  is  one  that  prevents  a 
transfer  within  10  years  of  the  original  sale  of  the  property  without 
regard  to  whether  or  not,  in  the  meantime,  the  Government  obliga- 
tion has  been  fully  met,  without  the  consent  of  the  Secretary. 
That  is  the  first  proposition.  For  the  first  10  years,  even  though 
the  Government  may  have  been  fully  reimbursed,  may  have  issued 
its  patent  or  its  deed,  there  can  not  be  a  transfer  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  Secretary.  The  purpose  of  that  is  to  carry  out  the  intent 
of  the  act  to  give  all  the  benefit  of  this  enterprise  to  the  soldier 
purchaser.  More  than  that,  to  strongly  persuade  the  soldier  pur- 
chaser to  be  the  sole  beneficiary  for  10  years  of  the  increasing  values. 
Now,  anyone  who  knows  about  development  of  this  kind  knows 
that  conditions  of  this  kind  will  likely  arise — they  have  arisen 
on  our  reclamation  projects:  An  enterprise  is  unusually  successful, 
property  values  rise  rapidly,  particularly  in  favored  locations,  and 
there  is  a  temptation,  particularly  to  the  man  who  has  never  pos- 
sessed very  much,  to  the  man  of  a  wandering  spirit,  to  the  man 
who  possibly  has  not  had  instilled  into  his  soul  the  necessity,  or,  at 
least,  the  importance,  of  having  a  home,  to  realize  on  a  slight  in- 
crease or  considerable  increase,  as  it  may  be,  in  the  value  of  that 
property,  and  if  the  enterprises  are  successful,  no  end  of  folks 
are  going  to  be  hovering  about  to  take  advantage  of  it. 

It  might  be  in  one  case  that  the  offer  was  only  a  few  hundred 
dollars  above  the  Government  obligation;  it  might  be  several  thou- 
sand dollars  above  the  obligation,  and  an  individual  whom  we  have 
no  purpose  in  aiding  under  this  bill,  a  person  whom  we  are  under 
no  obligation  to  aid  but  who  happens  to  be  the  fortunate  possessor 
of  some  cash,  might  step  in,  taking  advantage  of  the  temporary  dis- 
couragement of  a  settler,  taking  advantage  of  his  desire  to  seek 
other  fields  or  to  realize  in  hard  cash  a  small  sum,  and  buy  his 
property. 

It  is  a  new  provision  under  our  law  in  the  transfer  of  property. 
This  whole  proposal  is  new.  We  are  embarking  on  a  new  sort  of 
enterprise.  There  is  a  certain  class  of  men  we  want  to  give  an 
opportunity,  and  we  want  to  encourage  and  defend  them  in  securing 
all  the  benefits  of  our  action. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  Mr.  Mondell 

Mr.  MONDELL  (interposing).  One  moment,  please,  let  me  finish 
what  I  have  in  mind,  because  I  think  this  is  very  important,  and 
whatever  the  committee  does  in  regard  to  this  and  to  all  these  other 
things.  The  committee  will  have  no  quarrel  with  me  about  it.  What 
we  have  sought  to  do  is  to  give  our  soldiers  the  benefits  of  these  en- 
terprises and  the  benefit  of  the  unearned  increment,  if  that  is  a  proper 
word  in  this  connection,  that  may  arise  out  of  this  development. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Do  you  think  these  boys  would  be  willing  to  tie  them- 
selves up  definitely  for  a  period  of  10  years  ? 

Mr.  MONDELL,.  They  would  not  tie  themselves  up  absolutely.  A 
transfer  may  be  made  at  any  time  with  the  approval  of  the  Secre- 
tary, which  means  with  the  approval  of  such  board  as  the  Secretary 
will  establish,  whose  business  it  will  be  to  study  the  situation.  No 
such  body  of  men  are  likely  to  deny  a  man  the  right  to  transfer  his 
property  when  any  conditions  arise  that  make  it  important  from  his 
viewpoint  and  from  the  viewpoint  of  his  welfare  to  transfer  it. 
Conditions  may  arise  under  which  it  is  essential  that  a  man  may  be 


56  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

given  the  opportunity  to  sell.  Those  conditions  may  be  established, 
and  there  will  be  men  on  the  ground  who  will  be  familiar  with  the 
situation  and  who  will  understand  the  conditions,  and  I  am  of  the 
opinion  that  there  will  be  no  serious  .cause  for  complaint  under  such 
management  as  we  hope  and  confidently  expect  to  have  under  a  law 
like  this.  Now,  you  must  either  do  that  or  you  must  admit  that  we 
look  forward  and  anticipate  that  where  one  of  these  enterprises 
is  really  successful  in  a  very  short  time  the  men  who  are  the  bene- 
ficiaries of  it  will  not  be  the  soldiers  at  all,  but  will  be  those  who  are 
fortunate  enough  to  have  enough  money  to  pay  off  the  Government 
obligation  for  the  soldier,  get  his  patent  or  deed,  pay  him  a  trifling 
sum — and  in  many  cases  it  will  be  a  trifling  sum — over  and  above 
the  Government's  charge  and  secure  the  property. 

Now,  another  thing,  without  going  too  far  into  the  matter  of  regu- 
lation, we  want,  if  possible,  to  prevent  the  consolidation  of  these 
areas  into  large  tracts.  I  know  it  is  not  necessary  that  I  should 
go  into  a  discussion  of  the  importance  of  retaining,  as  far  as  we 
can  in  reason,  land  ownership  in  areas  necessary  for  the  support  of 
a  family  rather  than  the  gathering  of  lands  into  large  ownerships 
leading  inevitably  to  tenantry,  and  we  certainly  do  not  want  to  put 
the  Government's  money,  obstensibly  for  the  benefit  of  the  soldiers, 
into  an  enterprise  of  this  kind,  and  then  discover  in  a  few  years 
that  men  have  been  persuaded  to  part  with  their  property,  the  lands 
have  been  consolidated,  and  that  a  few  men  own  the  choice  tracts 
on  one  of  these  projects. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  have  given  but  one  side  of  the  matter  and  that  is 
on  the  assumption  of  protecting  the  soldier,  but  you  must  remember 
now  the  experience  of  the  last  10  years  of  people  under  the  reclama- 
tion service  who  clamored  and  came  to  Congress,  and  Congress  en- 
acted legislation  coming  from  the  Committee  on  Irrigation  of  Arid 
Lands — and  I  had  the  pleasure  of  helping  to  write  that  particular 
law  after  many  conferences  whereby  a  man  was  permitted  to  have 
his  patent  before  he  made  his  payment. 

Otherwise  he  never  could  sell  his  land  until  the  final  payments 
were  made,  which  might  be  1  year  or  5  years,  or  10  years  or  15 
years  or  20  years,  and  we  authorized  a  patent  to  be  issued  and  re- 
tained a  lien  by  the  Government  to  the  end  that  he  might  sell  it 
whenever  he  saw  fit.  They  all  clamored  for  that  legislation,  and 
do  you  not  think  we  ought  to  permit  something  like  that  in  this 
legislation  ? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  can  not  agree  with  the  judge  that  they  all  clam- 
ored for  that  legislation.  A  certain  number  of  men  clamored  for 
it.  I  expressed  some  doubt  as  to  the  wisdom  of  that  legislation. 
I  have  doubts  now  of  the  wisdom  of  it.  I  think  it  has  resulted  on 
some  of  the  reclamation  projects  in  more  transfers  than  are  for 
the  -good  of  the  original  owner.  I  know  of  one  project  where  there 
has  been  quite  a  number  of  transfers  of  the  choicest  part  of  the 
project.  I  believe  it  would  have  been  in  the  interest  of  some  of 
those  who  disposed  of  their  lands  if  they  had  not  been  in  a  position 
to  dispose  of  them  so  easily  and  so  readily. 

Under  the  reclamation  law  anyone  ran  come  and  buy  ami  sell 
and  there  is  no  discretion.  There  is  a  discretion  here.  We  are  try- 
ing to  aid  a  certain  class  of  men.  \Ye  are  not  only  putting  land 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  57 

in  condition  where  it  can  be  farmed,  but  we  are  proposing  to  aid 
In  building  homes,  houses,  and  barns,  and  to  lend  money  to  buy 
the  first  cow  and  the  first  team  and  the  first  flock  of  chickens. 

Mr.  BAKBOUR.  May  I  interrupt  there,  Mr.  Mondell,  because  that 
is  touching  right  on  the  proposition  which  has  occurred  to  me  in 
reading  this  bill,  and  one  that  Mr.  Ferris  has  touched  on  once  or 
twice  here?  The  provisions  are  that  the  Government  will  lend  to 
the  soldier  as  high  as  $1,200  for  the  erection  and  improvement  of 
buildings,  but  not  more  than  75  per  cent  of  his  investment  for  im- 
provement. That  would  contemplate  a  minimum  for  improvements, 
upon  which  the  Government  would  lend  75  per  cent.  Now,  in  the 
West,  where  many  of  these  projects  will  be  carried  on,  and  I  pre- 
sume the  same  conditions  exist  in  the  East  to  a  more  or  less  extent, 
$1,600  is  not  going  to  give  a  man  a  whole  lot  of  improvements;  but 
on  his  improvements  alone  he  must  have  $400  before  the  Govern- 
ment will  lend  him  the  $1,200. 

Now,  on  his  live  stock  and  equipment  the  Government  will  lend 
him  up  to  $800;  that  is  the  maximum  that  the  Government  will 
lend  him,  and  that  is  60  per  cent,  and  if  he  uses  his  maximum  he 
must  have  somewhere  in  the  neighborhood  of  $1,350  for  live  stock 
and  equipment,  which  is  not  a  large  amount  for  live  stock  and 
equipment.  In  other  words,  before  he  can  borrow  up  to  $800,  he 
must  have  $500  of  his  own  money.  Now,  I  understood  Secretary 
Lane  to  say  yesterday  that  the  land  value  of  each  of  these  allotments 
would  be  about  $6,000.  He  must  also  have  5  per  cent  of  that  amount, 
which  would  be  $300.  If  he  goes  in  and  erects  $1,600  worth  of  im- 
provements, which  is  not  a  large  amount  for  this  purpose,  and  if 
he  also  buys  $1,350  worth  of  live  stock  and  equipment  and  pays  his 
initial  5  per  cent  payment,  he  must  have  in  the  neighborhood  of 
$1 .250  to  make  his  start.  Mr.  Ferris  touched  on  that  subject  yester- 
day when  Secretary  Lane  was  here,  and  Secretary  Lane  said  that 
if  the  soldier  worked  on  this  project  for  a  year,  and  had  any  gump- 
tion— I  believe  that  was  the  word  he  used — he  would  have  saved 
enough  money  to  make  his  initial  payment.  Now,  assuming  that 
the  soldier  is  paid  $4  a  day  for  his  labor,  which  I  believe  would  be  a 
liberal  payment,  and  he  works  300  working  days  in  the  year,  he 
would  only  have  made  during  that  year  in  all  $1.200 ;  whereas,  in  order 
to  make  his  entry  on  this  land  he  must  have  $1,250.  Now,  does  not 
that  go  to  the  very  workability  of  this  project?  Is  it  not  requiring 
a  little  bit  too  much  of  the  soldier;  and  I  would  also  like  to  ask,  in 
connection  with  that,  how  that  compares  in  liberality  with  the  pro- 
visions which  the  Canadian  Government  is  making  for  its  soldiers? 
Of  course,  I  am  asking  these  questions  simply  for  information. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  The  question  raised  by  the  interrogatory  of  the 
gentleman  from  California  is  primary.  What  is  it  that  we  are  pro- 
posing to  do?  Are  Ave  proposing  a  bounty;  are  we  proposing  a 
gift;  are  we  proposing  a  gratuity,  or  are  we  proposing  helpful  aid? 
The  thought  underlying  this  bill  was  that  of  helpful  aid,  and  in 
granting  that  helpful  aid  there  must  be  certain  safeguards  provided. 
The  matter  must  be  considered  by  starting  out  with  the  proposition 
that  we  are  going  to  give  real  and  effective  helpful  aid  to  the  sol- 
dier; that  we  are  going  to  do  it  in  a  very  practical  way;  that  we  are 
not  going  to  lead  him  up  any  blind  alleys ;  that  we  are  not  going  to 


58  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

promise  him  gratuities  or  make  him  presents.  We  hope  to  offer  &. 
plan  which  will  appeal  to  those  who  really  desire  a  home  and  who 
are  willing  to  make  the  effort  that  is  required  and  always  will  be 
required  anywhere  on  earth  to  get  one.  We  have  not  overlooked 
the  soldier,  John  Smith,  who  enters  upon  one  of  these  enterprises 
without  a  penny.  The  average  time  required  for  the  construction  of 
one  of  these  enterprises  before  the  farms  are  ready  or  opened  will 
not  be  less  than  two  years.  I  think  that  in  the  majority  of  cases, 
where  the  work  to  be  done  is  so  extensive  that  the  price  will  be  con- 
siderable, it  will  be  nearer  three  years  than  two  years  before  the 
farms  will  be  ready. 

Where  the  farms  are  ready  more  quickly  than  that,  they  will  be 
in  regions  where  the  work  to  be  done  is  of  such  a  character  that  the 
cost  will  not  be  high.  The  Secretary  has  fixed  $6,000  as  the  average 
cost  of  a  farm,  but  in  my  thought  on  the  bill  I  have  had  $5,000  in 
mind  as  the  average,  although  it  may  run  to  $6,000.  Let  us  bear  in 
mind  that  there  is  also  a  provision  under  which  a  man  can  get  a 
home  on  a  small  tract  which  will  cost  very  much  less  than  that,  but 
we  are  speaking  now  of  farms.  John  Smith  begins  at  the  beginning 
of  the  project,  and,  as  suggested,  at  a  wage  of  perhaps  $4  per  day. 
That  will  certainly  be  a  very  good  wage,  because  we  must  remember 
that  whatever  the  wage  is,  it  must  be  eventually  paid  by  these 
farmers,  and  therefore  the  wage  should  be  fixed  in  view  of  the  going 
wage,  in  view  of  the  cost  of  living,  and  in  view  also  of  the  fact  that 
the  man  who  receives  it  is  the  man  who  eventually  must  pay  it. 
Within  two  years  a  man  can  certainly  save  on  $4  per  day,  or  even 
less,  $250  or  $300  if  he  has  in  prospect  a  home.  If  he  is  not  inclined 
to  do  it,  I  doubt  if  he  has  the  stuff  in  him  to  make  a  home.  If  a 
man  is  really  in  earnest  about  this  thing,  certainly  he  can  save  $1 
per  day  out  of  a  fair  wage  and  in  two  years  would  amount  to  $600. 

Now,  the  initial  payment  of  5  per  cent,  which  must  be  made  in 
cash,  would  amount  to"  $250  on  the  average,  or  to  $300  at  the  outside. 
So  that  John  Smith,  starting  without  a  cent,  working  on  that  project, 
and  having  no  friends  from  whom  he  can  make  a  small  loan,  and 
having  no  property  anywhere  on  which  he  can  realize  a  penny — and 
that  is  the  unusual  case,  because  almost  every  man  has  some  little 
resources — but,  assuming  that  he  has  nothing,  and  that  he  works  18 
months  to  2  years  and  saves  reasonably — and  he  would  not  have  to 
sacrifice  to  do  that — he  would  have  at  the  end  of  18  months  or  2  years 
more  than  enough  money  to  make  the  initial  payment  of  5  per  cent  on 
one  of  these  tracts,  which  would  amount  to  from  $200  to  $300,  de- 
pending upon  the  size  of  the  tract.  It  would  not  be  more  than  $25 
or  $30  on  one  of  the  small  farm  worker's  tracts. 

We  then  come  to  the  buildings,  which  mean  the  house,  a  shed  barn, 
and  fencing.  John  Jones  has  bought  his  farm  and  is  upon  it ;  if  John 
is  the  right  kind  of  a  fellow,  he  can  contribute  labor  in  the  digging  of 
the  postholes,  in  the  setting  of  the  fence  posts,  and  the  stringing  of  the 
wire.  If  he  has  even  average  skill,  he  can  help  to  build  the  shed  barn 
and  help  to  construct,  at  least,  the  foundation  of  his  house.  If  he  is 
fairly  skillful,  he  can  help  in  the  building  of  his  house  to  meet  his 
20  per  cent  of  the  improvement  payments.  I  think  that  it  will  be 
entirely  possible  in  many  localities  to  make  the  initial  improvements 
for  less  than  $1,600.  Many  a  farmer  has  started  and  been  very  sue- 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  59 

•cessful  with  buildings  that  cost  less  than  that  at  the  beginning.  If 
this  man  and  his  wife  have  a  house  of  two  rooms,  that  will  do  for  a 
few  months  at  the  start.  We  are  not  expecting  these  soldiers  to  go 
through  with  what  most  American  pioneers  have  gone  through  in  the 
beginning,  but  they  can  start  modestly. 

Mi'.  SMITH.  I  would  like  to  suggest  something  that  might  be  help- 
ful to  you :  On  the  Twin  Falls  project,  which  is  the  most  prosperous 
irrigation  project  in  the  West,  there  are  hundreds  of  those  farmers 
who  are  living  with  their  wives  in  one  room,  and  they  have  been 
doing  that  for  more  than  a  year. 

Mr.  MOXDELL.  I  began  as  a  pioneer  on  a  homestead  in  northwestern 
Iowa,  and  I  have  seen  homesteaders  in  every  western  State  and  Ter- 
ritory in  the  Union.  I  have  seen  hundreds  and  thousands  of  home- 
steaderc  in  one-room  sod  houses  that  did  not  cost  over  ten  or  twenty 
dollars  beyond  what  the  man  put  in  by  his  own  labor.  We  are  not 
expecting  that  these  men  shall  start  life  in  that  way.  We  do  not 
want  them  to.  But  I  remember  very  well  starting  as  a  preemption 
settler  on  a  tract  in  northwestern  Nebraska  in  a  house  that  was  part 
sod  and  part  frame  house,  and,  I  think,  cost  about  $50  besides  labor. 
And  it  was  a  comfortable  house.  In  the  first  place,  it  will  not  nec- 
essarily cost  $1,600  for  the  average  man  who  has  anything  to  start 
with.  If  he  is  a  man  with  a  family,  he  probably  can  borrow  a  few 
dollars  from  his  wife's  folks :  or  if  he  has  the  right  kind  of  wife,  she 
will  help  greatly.  They  do  not  have  to  have  a  fashionable  bungalow 
at  the  start. 

I  assume  plans  will  be  prepared  by  the  service,  a  variety  of  plans 
covering  all  sorts  of  houses  and  barns,  from  a  one  or  two  room 
emergency  home  to  the  very  fair  bungalow  farm  homes.  The  men 
will  have  the  benefit  of  these  plans  and  of  the  specifications  as  to 
the  lumber  required,  and  they  will  have  the  benefit  of  wholesale 
buying  of  the  material.  Xow.  a  man  wants  a  house  and  barn  that 
will  cost,  perhaps,  $1,000  or  $1,200.  He  does  not  want  to  borrow 
more  than  six,  seven,  or  eight  hundred  dollars,  but  he  contracts 
himself  to  build  that  house  according  to  those  specifications  for  the 
sum  that  the  Government  advances,  and  the  balance  of  the  cost  he 
pays  in  his  own  labor.  Speaking  about  houses,  I  spent  a  night  about 
a  year  ago  in  one  of  the  temporary  structures  that  the  Reclamation 
Service  builds  for  its  engineers  in  charge  of  projects.  The  man  and 
his  wife  and  two  small  children  were  living  in  three  rooms.  Of 
course,  they  were  not  so  big,  but  there  were  three  rooms,  a  kitchen, 
dining  room,  sitting  room,  parlor,  and  bedroom  combination.  It 
was  a  perfectly  comfortable  place  for  that  little  family  for  the  time. 
He  was  an  engineer  and  expected  to  occupy  it  for  two  or  three 
years  while  they  were  developing  that  project,  and  they  told  me 
that  by  buying  the  stuff  wholesale  the  house  cost  $500. 

Xow,  I  do  not  claim,  and  no  one  who  has  had  to  do  with  the 
drafting  of  this  bill  claims,  that  there  is  anything  sacred  in  these 
figures  or  in  these  percentages.  It  would  be  foolish  to  have  any 
such  idea  as  that,  because  that  is  only  the  opinion  of  a  few  men  who 
had  to  do  with  these  things,  and  I  have  taken  their  judgment  very 
largely  to  work  out  a  practical  scheme  that  was  within  the  reach  of 
any  man  who  was  ambitious  to  have  a  home  and  who  was  willing  to 
work  for  it.  We  were  careful  not  to  hold  out  hopes  to  the  man  who 


60  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

simply  wanted  to  realize  on  increasing  values  and  who  had  no- 
thought  of  establishing  himself  on  the  soil  and  working  for  a  home. 
Therefore,  you  may  modify  those  provisions  as  you  see  fit,  but  those 
were  the  percentages  and  those  were  the  sums  that  we  arrived  at 
after  consultation  with  Mr.  Mead  and  representatives  of  the  Recla- 
mation Service  who  have  some  knowledge  of  the  cost  of  temporary 
buildings,  and  gentlemen  who  have  had  to  do  with  that  sort  of 
settlement  improvements. 

Now.  let  us  come  to  the  third  proposition.  During  the  time  that 
John  Smith  is  purchasing  his  buildings  or  putting  up  his  buildings 
there  will  be  more  or  less  trading  in  calves,  chickens,  and  horses 
that  are  serviceable  for  farm  work,  but  possibly  not  of  the  highest 
price  in  the  country.  There  will  be  a  bit  of  trading  about  among 
the  folks  and  that  sort  of  thing.  Out  of  savings  they  will  gather  in 
a  few  chickens,  a  pig  or  two,  a  calf,  or  an  old  horse. 

I  do  not  think  that  any  fellow  who  is  going  to  make  a  success  of 
it  will  haATe  any  difficulty  in  matching  the  Government's  advance  to 
him  for  live  stock  and  machinery  on  the  basis  of  f>0  per  cent  to  40 
per  cent.  However,  there  is  nothing  sacred  about  those  percentages. 
The  thought  was  that  when  we  got  beyond  the  Hue  where  we  gave 
the  man  an  opportunity  to  buy  a  farm  on  very  long-time  payments 
and  a  low  rate  of  interest,  and  then  provided  a  plan  for  the  erection 
of  his  building  under  which  his  own  work  would  contribute  in  one 
way  or  another  his  share  of  that  improvement,  if  he  was  the  right 
sort  of  a  man  he  would  be  able  when  he  came  forward  for  the  live- 
stock and  machinery  loan  to  show  a  certain  amount  of  stock  which 
would  make  up  his  percentage  of  the  aggregate  value  of  the  prop- 
erty on  which  the  Government  could  be  secured  for  its  loan. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Some  of  the  projects  would  be  on  the  cooperative 
basis,  would  they  not,  Mr.  Mondell?  The  community  or  project 
might  have  so  much  live  stock  to  do  the  heavy  work.  Is  it  contem- 
plated under  this  measure  that  they  may  do  work  in  common  on 
these  projects? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Undoubtedly  the  community  could  arrange  for  co- 
operative work  in  that  direction.  Remember,  where  it  is  essential 
the  department  can  go  forward  under  this  law,  not  only  to  prepare 
a  part  of  the  farm  for  cultivation,  but  they  may  even  plant  the  crop 
on  a  small  acreage  if  the  seeding  season  comes  along  just  before  the 
sale,  and  it  seems  advisable  to  have  the  seeding  done  in  April  or 
May  for  the  man  who  is  going  to  buy  in  June  or  July.  That  has 
been  the  practice  frequently.  While  this  bill  does  not  specifically 
provide  for  that  it  undoubtedly  would  authorize  its  being  done. 
Now,  if  the  committee  feels  that  the  bill  is  not  sufficiently  liberal, 
of  course  it  must  exercise  its  best  judgment  in  that  regard.  We  have 
done  the  best  we  could. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Following  up  the  thought  presented  and  the  figures 
offered  by  Mr.  Barbour,  are  many  of  these  farms  to  be  located  in  the 
Middle  West  or  East? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Would  you  allow  me  in  answering  that  question  to 
say,  first,  that  Mr.  Barbour's  question  was  based  upon  the  assump- 
tion that  the  man  in  every  case  was  going  to  demand  the  maximum 
and  was  going  to  get  it,  but,  of  course,  Mr.  Barbour  did  not  assume 
in  asking  this  question  that  every  man  in  every  case  would  have  to 


HOMES   FOE   SOLDIERS.  61 

meet  his  percentages  of  that  maximum  in  cash.  He  was  asking  the 
question,  as  it  will  be  presented  by  men  who  want  to  know  how  it 
will  work  out.  What  I  have  been  trying  to  point  out  is  the  fact 
that  other  than  the  original  5  per  cent,  which  must  be  in  cash,  there 
is  not  another  obligation  that  the  man  must  meet  that  can  not  be 
met  wholly  through  his  own  labor  or  through  the  means  that  he  can 
accumulate  at  odd  times  or  odd  hours  by  his  own  labor. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  understand  you  to  say  that  a  man  in  the  South 
would  be  able  to  save  $1  per  day  for  300  days  in  the  year.  I  want 
to  ask  you  whether  in  the  Middle  West  and  in  the  East,  where  some 
of  these  projects  will  be  located,  a  man  will  be  able  to  work  300  days 
in  the  year?  Would  not  the  weather  conditions  in  winter  make  a 
difference  there? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Of  course  there  will  be  the  winter  season,  and  in 
some  cases  men  will  not  be  able  to  work  all  the  year.  Men  who 
have  a  home  ahead  of  them,  who  have  the  hope  of  a  home,  and  the 
expectation  or  determination  of  getting  one,  will  not  have  any 
trouble  in  meeting  the  conditions  of  this  bill. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  I  did  not  ask  my  question  with  an  idea  of  criti- 
cizing this  bill. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  understand  that.  You  wanted  to  bring  up  that 
feature  of  it. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  I  wanted  your  view  upon  it,  because  I  knew  you 
had  gone  into  the  matter  fully,  and  because  that  would  be  one  of 
the  first  questions  asked  by  anyone  interested  in  one  of  these  proj- 
ects. One  of  the  first  questions  that  he  would  ask  would  be  what 
financial  ability  would  be  required,  and  I  would  like  to  be  in  a  po- 
sition to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  do  not  know  that  I  have  answered  it  adequately. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  With  regard  to  section  7  of  the  bill,  in  that  section 
you  provide  against  assignments,  but  you  have  made  no  provision 
here  in  case  of  the  death  of  the  settler  or  his  disability.  How 
would  that  be  cared  for?  Would  it  pass  to  his  heirs  without  any 
particular  action,  or,  in  case  of  permanent  disability  during  the 
time  he  was  performing  the  obligations  of  the  contract,  what  would 
happen  to  him. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  The  question  that  arises  in  my  mind  in  reference 
to  qualifying  this  discretion  on  the  part  of  the  Secretary  is  that  it 
would  be  difficult  to  find  an  end  to  suggested  qualifications  of  his 
discretion.  I  assumed,  and,  of  course,  we  must  all  assume,  that 
in  carrying  out  a  law  of  this  kind,  good  judgment,  a  humanitarian 
view,  and  kindly  purposes  will  rule.  I  should  not  think  it  conceiv- 
able that  the  Secretary  would  withhold  the  right  of  transfer  in  the 
case  of  death  or  permanent  disability,  or  in  other  case  where  there 
were  like  hard  conditions. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  There  might  be  conditions  under  which  the  prop- 
erty might  have  to  be  sold  at  a  sacrifice.  I  do  not  know  whether 
the  language  giving  the  authority  to  sell  is  inclusive  enough  to 
permit  him  to  act  in  a  case  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  under  language  of  this  kind, 
the  Secretary  can  say  to  everybody,  "You  can  sell  when  you  get 
ready  or  whenever  you  desire  to  sell."  He  can  not  sell  without  the 
authority  of  the  Secretary,  but  the  Secretary  can  grant  that  authority 


62  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

just  as  broadly  as  lie  wants  to.  There  is  no  question  about  the  Secre- 
tary's authority.  There  may  be  some  question  as  to  whether  the 
Secretary  would  in  all  cases  exercise  his  discretion  wisely,  and  would 
allow  a  man  to  transfer  in  a  case  where  he  had  presented  considera- 
tions and  conditions  that  would  justify  a  transfer.  It. might  be  in 
some  cases  difficult  to  persuade  the  Secretary  as  to  the  propriety  or 
wisdom  or  necessity  of  making  a  transfer.  Now,  there  is  one  more 
thought  on  that  point:  This  very  thing  would  be  quite  helpful  to 
the  man  who  wanted  to  sell  in  guarding  him  against  people  who 
might  Avant  to  take  advantage  of  his  necessities  by  buying  him  out 
at  a  very  small  advance  over  what  he  had  paid.  The  man  who  will 
primarily  pass  upon  a  question  of  this  kind  will  be  the  man  in  charge 
of  the  project. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Right  there  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  what 
Mr.  Mead  said  on  that  same  point  in  his  summary.  He  gives  a 
summary  of  the  various  laws  in  the  English-speaking  countries,  and 
he  states  that  in  nearly  all  the  acts,  while  the  soldier  is  not  legally 
required  to  maintain  a  residence,  he  can  not  lease  his  land  or  trans- 
fer it  within  a  stated  period.  That  is  in  line  with  the  provisions  of 
this  bill. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Yes.  Now,  just  to  finish  the  thought  I  had  in 
mind :  A  man  might  be  approached  when  he  was  in  a  condition  de- 
manding the  possession  of  some  cash  and  be  tempted  to  sell.  Not 
being  inclined  to  disclose  that  condition  to  his  curious  neighbors,  he 
might  be  disposed  to  sell.  I  can  readily  understand  how  under  those 
circumstances  the  right  kind  of  man  in  charge  of  a  project  might 
be  of  some  assistance  to  him  in  pointing  out  ways  of  relief  or  in  sug- 
gesting that  if  he  must  sell  and  if  the  conditions  were  such  as  to  Avar- 
rant  his  selling,  he  ought  to  get  a  better  price  than  the  offer  that  is 
made  to  him.  He  might  assist  the  settler  in  that  way  very  materially. 

Mr.  SMITH.  What  Avould  you  think  of  the  proposition  of  limiting 
these  transfers  to  soldiers,  so  as  to  carry  out  your  suggestion  that 
only  soldiers  should  be  on  these  projects? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  That,  of  course,  is  a  thought  that  is  worthy  of  con- 
sideration. That  is  the  situation  in  the  reclamation  projects ;  that  is, 
before  a  man  has  secured  a  limited  patent  by  completing  his  term 
of  residence,  he  can  only  transfer  it  to  a  man  who  is  eligible  under 
the  law,  or,  in  other  words,  to  one  AAT!IO  is  himself  eligible  as  a  home- 
steader. I  think  that  thought  is  worthy  of  consideration.  I  think 
it  is  tremendously  important  that  you  should  so  guard  this  as  to 
protect  the  men.  It  is  for  the  protection  of  the  men  in  the  first 
place,  and  it  is  for  the  protection  of  the  community  in  the  second 
place,  in  order  to  prevent  men  who  are  not  entitled  to  the  benefits 
of  this  development  from  securing  them,  and  to  prevent  the  consoli- 
dation of  lands  into  large  areas.  That  is  tremendously  important. 

The  CM  AII;  MAX.  I  Avant  to  ask  you  a  question  in  reference  to  the 
language  in  section  7,  at  the  bottom  of  page  4,  beginning  with  the 
language,  "  No  transfer,  assignment,  mortgage,  or  lease  made  during 
that  period  shall  be  valid  without  the  approval  of  the  Secretary,  and 
no  transfer,  assignment,  mortgage,  or  lease  of  any  right,  title,  or  in- 
terest held  under  a  contract  of  sale  shall  be  valid  at  any  time  without 
the  approval  of  the  Secretary."  Now,  that  is  absolute,  and  it  seems 
to  me  that  it  is  covered  by  the  first  part  of  the  section.  Why  is  it 
necessary  to  haA-e  both  of  those  clauses? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  63 

Mr.  MONDE!!,.  Because  the  first  prohibits  the  transfer  even  after 
the  issuance  of  a  deed.  The  second  is  that  no  transfer,  assignment, 
mortgage,  or  lease  of  any  right,  title,  or  interest  held  under  a  contract 
of  sale  shall  be  valid  at  any  time  without  the  approval  of  the  Secre- 
tary. They  are  two  entirely  different  things.  First,  we  are  prevent- 
ing the  transfer  of  these  lands  without  approval,  even  though  all  of 
the  Government  obligations  shall  be  met,  and  the  patent  or  deed  shall 
be  issued  within  10  years. 

That  first  provision  would  have  to  be  written  in  the  patent  or  deed 
in  order  to  make  it  effective ;  the  second  applies  to  the  contract  of 
sale,  and,  of  course,  it  would  be  a  part  of  the  contract -of  sale.  You 
can  not  very  well  combine  those  two  things  in  the  same  statement. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  I  would  like  to  ask  whether  this  bill  makes  provi- 
sion for  a  shortage  of  crops  or  a  failure  of  crops,  which  might 
easily  occur  and  occasion  loss  to  the  soldiers,  thus  threatening  them 
with  a  shortage  of  funds  with  which  to  go  ahead  with  the  next  years' 
crops,  all  through  no  fault  of  their  own,  but  because  of  a  real  shortage 
of  crops  in  that  section  of  the  country?  It  seems  to  me  that  a  man 
who  was  working  on  one  of  these  schemes  and  who  had  gotten  Gov- 
ernment advances,  should  be  provided  for  in  case  there  was  a  shortage 
of  crops  and  he  needed  money  for  the  continuation  of  the  next  year's 
crops,  or,  possibly,  there  might  be  a  shortage  in  two  crops. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Your  thought  is  that  there  should  be  some  provision 
under  which  certain  conditions  a  man  might  not  be  required  to  meet 
his  payments? 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  And  have  further  advances  that  it  seems  are  pro- 
vided for  in  this  bill. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Of  course,  as  we  go  along  with  the  development  of 
an  enterprise  like  this  we  will  see  things  that  perhaps  we  ought  to 
do;  but  meeting  your  last  suggestion  first  there  is  a  provision  in 
the  bill  under  which  the  Secretary,  under  regulations,  fixes  the  con- 
ditions of  payment.  I  do  not  think  it  is  wise  to  attempt  to  outline 
or  to  limit  the  Secretary's  discretion  in  that  regard.  You  could 
easily  say  that  upon  the  failure  of  crops  the  man  would  not  have  to 
pay,  etc.";  and  then  you  would  immediately  have  the  question  raised 
ten  thousand  times  as  to  what  constituted  a  failure  of  crops.  I 
think  that  is  a  field  which  you  must  leave  to  the  discretion  of  the 
Secretary.  Let  me  say  this  with  regard  to  the  Reclamation  Service. 
We  have  had  some  experience  there.  There  is  a  very  drastic  pro- 
vision under  the  reclamation  law  under  which  a  man  can  be  abso- 
lutely closed  out,  receiving  nothing  for  his  payments.  There  is  no 
such  provision  in  this  bill,  and  even  under  that  drastic  provision  the 
discretion  is  such  that  there  has  been  no  complaint  up  to  this  time 
which  has  reached  my  ears  of  a  man  having  been  closed  out  on  a 
reclamation  project,  and  we  have  24  of  them  in  17  different  States. 

Now,  that  being  true,  under  a  provision  which  gives  the  Secretary 
the  clear  authority,  and  in  a  way  makes  it  his  duty  to  compel  pay- 
ments, the  matter  of  security  and  the  matter  of  discretion  under 
certain  circumstances  is  left  to  the  Secretary.  I  do  not  believe  it 
would  be  wise  to  attempt  to  write  into  the  law  any  language  that 
would  have  the  purpose  of  guiding  that  discretion, 'because  writing 
in  one  condition  under  which  the  Secretary  is  advised,  or  it  is  sug- 
gested that  he  shall  grant  extensions,  excludes  other  conditions  which 
might  arise  that  we  did  not  happen  to  think  of. 
133319—19 5 


64  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  My  idea  or  thought  was  to  give  the  Secretary  a 
larger  discretion  in  advancing  the  money  or  to  give  him  a  further 
discretion. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  All  the  limit  we  have  placed  on  him  is  that  he 
can  not  advance  over  $800.  He  does  not  have  to  advance  that  all  at 
one  time.  He  can  advance  it  at  several  times,  and  that  has  been  one 
criticism  of  the  bill — criticizing  it  from  the  other  direction. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Does  he  not  have  to  take  a  mortgage  on  live  stock 
for  the  $800? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Suppose  the  man  has  live  stock  but  has  not  facili- 
ties for  going  ahead  in  other  ways  ?  He  may  not  have  enough  money 
to  buy  his  food. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  We  have  tried  to  be  businesslike,  and  yet  not  im- 
pose a  condition  that  energetic,  well-intentioned  men  can  not  meet. 
Of  course,  in  the  carrying  out  of  a  project  of  this  kind,  there  will 
be  innumerable  questions  of  discretion,  and  the  discretion  is  here 
lodged  with  the  Secretary. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  The  question  Mr.  Hersman  asked  relative  to  a 
provision  of  that  sort  is  one  which  is  usually  covered  by  a  provision 
in  contracts  for  the  sale  of  land  in  California,  but  as  you  stated  a 
moment  ago,  what  constitutes  a  total  failure  of  crop  is  always  open 
to  construction. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  The  man  might  need  a  little  time  where  there  was 
only  a  partial  failure  of  his  crop  much  more  than  another  man 
would  need  it  where  there  was  a  total  failure  of  his  crop,  because 
the  other  man  might  have  some  resources  to  fall  back  upon,  whereas 
the  man  who  has  the  partial  failure  might  have  none  other  than 
those  he  had  to  meet  with  what  crops  he  had.  I  will  say  again  that 
anything  you  gentlemen  conclude  is  wise  in  detail  in  this  matter  I 
shall  be  very  glad  to  give  my  assent  to,  possibly  with  reservations: 
but  I  doubt  if  it  is  wise  to  attempt  to  make  suggestions  with  regard 
to  that  exercise  of  discretion  which  remains  with  the  Secretary  under 
the  bill. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Of  course,  I  am  simply  asking  these  questions  in 
order  to  clarify  the  matter  in  my  own  mind. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Yes.  Of  course,  there  may  be  many  other  condi- 
tions. There  may  be  a  fire  and  a  man  may  have  all  his  buildings 
burned  down,  or  floods  may  destroy  his  buildings  and  stock.  Many 
things  may  occur  which  will  render  it  practically  impossible  for  a 
man  to  meet  his  obligations  on  the  dates  fixed,  and  there  must  be  a 
little  leeway  and  there  must  be  some  discretion  to  give  the  man  an 
opportunity  to  pull  out.  Now,  that  rests  with  the  Secretary  within 
reasonable  limits. 

Mr.  HERSEMAN.  Is  that  discretion  provided  for  in  this  bill? 
Mr.  MONDELL.  Unquestionably,  there  is  a  discretion  because  of  the 
obligation  of  payment. 

Mr.  HERSEMAN.  No;  but  for  further  advances,  in  case  these  condi- 
tions do  arise.  That  is  what  I  was  referring  to. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Of  course,  that  is  another  matter  entirely. 
Mr.  HERSEMAN.  How  would  we  get  at  that,  Mr.  Mondell? 
Mr.  MONDELL.  Under  this  bill,  there  are  certain  things  definitely 
fixed.    First,  the  man  must  pay  5  per  cent  in  cash  on  the  cost  of  his 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  65 

land.  Second,  the  maximum  which  he  can  borrow  for  improvements 
is  $1,200.  Now,  he  may  borrow  it  at  one  time  or  two  times  or  three 
times,  but  lie  can  only  borrow  $1,200.  He  can  borrow  $800  for  live 
stock  and  implements.  He  need  not  borrow  it  all  at  once  but  can 
borrow  it  when  he  needs  it.  Now,  whether  that  is  enough  is  a  matter 
for  you  gentlemen  to  determine.  The  men  who  have  had  to  do  with 
these  things  believe  that  there  should  be  a  maximum,  and  most  of 
them  were  of  opinion  that  that  maximum  fixed  was  perhaps  as  high 
as  we  could  safely  go  at  the  beginning,  in  starting  upon  this  work. 

Mr.  HERSEMAN.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  one  question  right  there, 
Mr.  Mondell,  and  that  is,  would  it  not  be  wise  to  put  in  a  provision 
here  whereby  the  man  carries  insurance  against  accidents,  so  that  in 
case  an  accident  happened — 

Mr.  MONDELL,  (interposing).  That  is  another  matter  of  discretion. 
i  am  assuming  that  the  instrument  under  which  the  Government  is 
protected  will  carry  with  it  the  usual  provisions  with  regard  to  in- 
surance and  all  that  sort  of  thing,  but  no  man  can  insure  his  prop- 
erty for  all  that  it  is  worth,  and  a  total  loss  is  never  met  by  insurance, 
so  that  when  I  suggested  as  one  of  the  things  that  might  happen,  a 
fire,  that  might  burn  his  property,  of  course,  I  assumed  the  property 
would  have  to  be  insured,  but  no  insurance  covers  total  losses  and  it 
takes  some  time  to  collect  insurance,  and  a  man  might  be  in  position, 
by  reason  of  a  fire,  whereby  he  would  be  unable  to  meet  his  obliga- 
tions in  the  immediate  future.  I  am  assuming  that  all  those  things 
that  are  ordinarily  required  in  contracts  of  that  sort  and  in  taking  se- 
curity for  loans,  all  reasonable  things,  will  be  provided  for  under 
the  administration  of  the  Secretary. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  through,  Mr.  Mondell? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  have  just  been  discussing  these  matters  because 
gentlemen  wanted  me  to. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  There  is  one  question  I  would  like  to  ask  in  refer- 
ence to  the  provision  for  short-time  loans  not  to  exceed  $300  at  any 
one  time.  Do  the  words  "  at  any  one  time  "  mean  until  that  loan  has 
been  repaid. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  am  inclined  to  think  it  does.  That,  in  a  way,  of 
course,  would  meet  the  suggestion  made  by  Mr.  Hersman.  I  am  in- 
clined to  think  that  under  the  language  as  it  stands,  there  might  be 
successive  loans,  and  of  course  you  gentlemen  want  to  determine 
whether  that  ought  to  be  a  provision  of  the  law. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Mondell. 

Mr.  MOM  DELL.  I  thank  you  very  much  for  having  so  patiently 
li.-tcned  to  me. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  we  ought  to  come  to 
.some  conclusion  as  to  how  long  these  hearings  shall  last.  I  have  here 
a  list  of  witnesses  who  desire  to  be  heard,  and  perhaps  some  are  only 
tentative.  We  have  Director  Davis,  of  the  Reclamation  Service,  and 
Gen.  Cole,  whom  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  would  like  to  have 
make  a  statement;  Mr.  Henry' Sterling,  representing  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor,  and  Mr.  Hernandez  has  a  friend,  and  Mr. 
Smith  has  a  friend  who  want  to  be  heard.  Mr.  Atkeson,  representing 
the  National  Grange,  and  Mr.  Chamberlain,  representing  the  Civic 
Betterments  League,  also  desire  to  be  heard.  Mr.  Chamberlain  de- 
sires 15  minutes.  Mr.  Atkeson,  would  15  minutes  satisfy  3-011  ? 


bb  HOMES  FOB  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Less  than  15  minutes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  May  I  add  a  couple  of  names  ?  Mr.  Hastings,  a  mem- 
ber of  the  House  from  my  State,  expressed  a  desire  to  come  up  here 
and  say  a  few  words  on  this  bill,  and  also  the  governor  of  my  State 
will  be  here  next  Monday  afternoon  on  the  Pennsylvania,"  and  I 
would  be  glad  if  you  would  put  him  down  to  be  heard. 

I  was  going  to  make  another  suggestion,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  it 
may  require  more  time  than  you  would  want  to  take,  and  if  it  does, 
I  will  withdraw  it.  This  legislation  is  naturally  going  to  interest 
every  one  of  the  States,  and  they  have  already  been  consulted  on 
the  subject  more  or  less  through  Secretary  Lane's  office,  and  they 
all  have  an  interest  in  it.  How  much  trouble  would  we  get  into,  or 
would  it  not  be  in  the  interest  of  justice,  if  the  chairman  issued  an 
invitation  to  each  State  delegation  to  pick  out  one  member  of  the 
delegation,  and  have  him  come  here  and  present  the  views  of  the 
delegation,  where  they  are  in  harmony,  in  a  statement  not  to  exceed 
15  minutes  apiece.  I  make  that  suggestion  for  the  reason  that  the 
Government  is  to  appoint  one  of  these  commissioners  to  appraise 
the  land,  the  Farm  Loan  Board  is  to  appoint  one  of  them,  if  this  bill 
prevails,  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  one  of  them.  It  is  to 
be  allied  with  the  States  right  from  the  start,  and  it  must  be.  Your 
project  is  to  be  in  the  State  and  the  governor  helps  to  select  the 
lands  to  be  used  for  this  purpose,  and  I  was  wondering  if  that 
might  not  be  a  tactful  suggestion,  in  order  to  get  the  members  of 
the  different  States  to  confer  with  their  governors  and  confer  with 
their  delegations  and  at  least  give  them  an  opportunity  to  come  in 
and  make  a  statement  of  15  minutes.  That  would  take,  of  course, 
perhaps  two  or  three  days. 

Mr.  VAILE.  That  would  probably  save  us  some  time  on  the  floor 
of  the  House. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  had  that  in  mind.  There  are  many  members  who 
have  come  to  me  and  said,  "  What  is  this  land  bill  for  the  soldiers 
that  we  have  had  so  many  letters  about  from  down  home,"  and  I 
think  if  the  chairman  would  issue  an  invitation  to  them  by  dele- 
gations and  ask  them  to  at  once  call  their  delegations  together  and 
select  some  one  to  present  the  views  of  the  delegation,  you  would 
cement  the  interests  of  all  the  States  and  it  would  probably  be  help- 
ful on  the  floor  of  the  House. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  might  enlist  a  good  deal  of  active  support, 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  think  it  would. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Ferris  if  his  suggestion  is 
meant  to  apply  to  the  States  that  have  members  on  this  committee  I 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  think  it  should. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  should  apply  to  all  States. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  think  it  should.  For  instance,  I  could  advise  my 
State  and  you  could  advise  Kansas,  and  Mr.  Barbour  could  advise 
"his  State,  and  we  would  confer  with  a  view  to  allowing  each  State 
to  have  "  its  nose  in  the  pot,"  so  to  speak,  and  I  think  you  would 
enlist  a  lot  of  interest,  and  I  think  you  would  educate  them  up  on 
the  matter,  or  at  least  cause  them  to  educate  themselves,  and  we 
might  get  some  very  helpful  suggestions. 

The  CHAIKMAN.  Would  you  think  it  necessary  to  invite  the  States 
already  represented  upon  the  committee? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  67 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  would  make  it  uniform,  and  if  the  members  on  the 
committee  can  be  the  judge  on  how  he  wants  it  handled  from  his 
State.  If  he  wants  to  present  it  himself,  all  right,  or  he  can  have 
some  one  else  do  it. 

Mr.  GRAHAM.  Mr.  Chairman,  do  you  know  whether  this  bill  has 
been  submitted  by  the  (Secretary  to  the  various  governors  or  not,  and 
whether  he  has  conferred  with  them? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  has  conferred  with  them  on  the  general  propo- 
sition quite  extensively,  and  I  have  a  great  many  communications 
which  the  Secretary  has  transmitted  to  the  committee  from  different 
governors  indorsing  the  project. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  He  has  presented  a  lot  of  those  things  in  connection 
with  his  report  to  the  committee  on  the  matter. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  would  like  to  hear  from  Mr.  Cory  on  that.  Mr. 
Cory  is  here  representing  the  Secretary's  office. 

Mr.  CORY.  I  am  the  engineer  in  charge  of  the  southern  district  of 
16  Southern  States.  Every  State,  except  Mr.  Ferris's  State,  has 
appointed  a  committee,  and  I  have  sent  copies  of  the  bill  to  each  of 
the  committee  members  and  to  each  committee,  and  have  asked  for 
.suggestions.  I  have  heard  from  all  of  them,  and  they  all  have  said 
that  they  are  willing  to  come,  but  most  of  them  say  they  have  no 
appropriation,  and  if  they  come  it  will  be  money  out  of  their  own 
pockets,  and  it  is  a  pretty  far  cry  from  here  to  Texas. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Ferris  does  not  propose  to  invite  representa- 
tives from  the  States  but  Representatives  from  the  House. 

Mr.  CORY.  Oh,  that  is  another  matter.  These  men  are  officially 
appointed  by  the  governors  to  act  officially  in  representing  the  States 
in  this  matter,  and  those  men  have  all  considered  the  bill  and  sent  in 
their  suggestions,  and  they  have  all  said  they  would  be  very  glad  to 
come,  but  they  have  also  added  that  unless  it  is  necessary  they  would 
rather  not  come,  because  in  most  cases  there"  is  no  money  available  to 
pay  their  expenses. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  did  not  suggest  that  we  should  bring  them  here  be- 
cause I  know  that  would  mean  a  delay  and  an  expense  which  the  com- 
mittee would  not  want  to  have,  but  I  think  we  could  get  these  Con- 
gressmen here. 

Mr.  CORY.  That  is  entirely  different,  of  course. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Let  me  interrupt  further  to  say  that  in  reference  to 
my  own  State,  after  I  talked  with  you  the  other  day  and  sent  the 
telegram  which  you  saw,  I  immediately  got  a  telegram  back  from  the 
governor  saying  that  he  would  appoint  anybody  we  wanted  ap- 
pointed, and  would  cooperate  to  the  fullest  extent,  and  he  is  coming 
here  himself. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  about  the  situation  in  Missis- 
sippi. For  a  while  the  governor  was  very  much  opposed  to  this 
measure. 

Mr.  CORY.  I  beg  your  pardon ;  I  should  have  explained  that.  The 
governor  of  Mississippi  has  not  appointed  a  committee.  A  State- 
wide committee  has  been  appointed  by  a  State-wide  meeting,  and  the 
chairman  of  that  is  the  commissioner  of  agriculure,  Mr.  P.  P. 
Garner,  and  I  am  in  touch  with  him,  and  he  is  the  one  who  wrote 
back. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I  wanted  to  bring  that  to  the  knowledge  of  this 
committee  because  he  is  very  antagonistic  to  it. 


68  HOMES  FOE   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  CORY.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  And  I  have  some  amendments  to  offer  to  this  bill 
in  order  to  protect  Mississippi's  interests  on  that  account.  He  is  to 
name  the  appraisers  under  this  bill  and  he  declines  to  have  anything 
to  do  with  it. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Mr.  Chairman,  unless  the  chairman  would  prefer  me 
not  to  dp  it.  I  would  move  that  it  is  the  sense  of  the  committee  that 
our  chairman,  speaking  for  the  committee,  invite  the  several  con- 
gressional delegations  to  select  one  member  of  their  delegation  to 
come  here  and  make  a  statement  not  exceeding  15  minutes  as  to  their 
viewpoint. 

Mr.  GRAHAM.  Will  the  gentleman  withhold  that  motion  for  a  mo- 
ment? I  want  to  ask  Mr.  Cory  a  question.  Mr.  Cory,  what  associa- 
tion was  it  you  spoke  of  that  had  been  notified — the  Southern  States 
Association? 

Mr.  CORY.  No;  I  said  I  am  simply  the  engineer  in  charge  of  the  16 
Southern  States. 

Mr.  GRAHAM.  This  is  the  question  I  asked  the  chairman  and  I 
do  not  think  you  covered  it :  Have  the  governors  of  all  the  States 
been  communicated  with  in  reference  to  this  legislation  ? 

Mr.  CORY.  I  think  the  governors  of  all  the  States  have  been  com- 
municated with  about  this  legislation,  but  not  directly  with  respect 
to  this  bill. 

Mr.  CORY.  I  think  the  governors  of  all  States  have  been  commu- 
nicated with  about  this  legislation — not  directly  with  respect  to  this 
bill,  because,  with  the  exception  of  Mississippi  and  Oklahoma,  the 
governors  have  named  delegates  and  commissions,  and  I  have  com- 
municated that  bill  to  the  chairman  of  the  commission  and  not  to  the 
governors  direct. 

Mr.  GRAHAM.  I  wanted  to  know  whether  the  governors  of  the 
various  States  knew  the  tenor  and  purport  of  this  particular  bill. 
If  not,  I  think  it  would  be  highly  advisable  to  confer  with  the  gov- 
ernors of  the  various  States  about  this  particular  bill.  I  know  that 
so  far  as  my  own  State  is  concerned  there  would  be  no  opposition  to 
it,  but  I  have  felt  that  I  would  like  to  communicate  with  the  gover- 
nor of  my  State  about  this  bill  before  it  is  reported  out. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  think  this  is  the  situation:  Of  course,  bills  covering 
this  same  subject  were  introduced  in  the  last  session  of  Congress  by 
Mr.  Taylor  and  others.  Mr.  Taylor's  bill  went  before  the  Committee 
on  Irrigation  of  Arid  Lands  at  that  time,  and  they  had  some  hearings 
upon  it.  There  was  very  Avide  publicity  given  to  it.  Now.  that  was 
not  this  identical  bill,  but  it  was  this  identical  subject.  A  hearing 
was  had  upon  this  same  subject.  I  think  the  subject  was  sufficiently 
before  them  to  give  them  a  good  idea  of  what  we  are  doing  here  now, 
because  this  is  almost  the  same  bill.  It  is  a  modification  of  details 
rather  than  of  substance. 

Mr.  CORY.  And  right  at  the  close  of  the  last  session  of  Congress 
there  was  a  conference  of  the  governors. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  It  represents  more  a  modification  of  details  than  of 
substance. 

Mr.  CORY.  Yes ;  it  is  practically  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  The  amounts  may  be  different  and  some  of  (lie  limita- 
tions are  different,  but  it  is  in  other  respects  practically  the  same 
bill. 


HOMES  FOB  SOLDIERS.  69 

Mr.  BAKER.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  state,  that  while  I  have  not 
done  so  before,  I  would  like  to  have  an  opportunity  to  be  heard  upon 
the  bill.  This  subject  had  considerable  consideration  by  myself  be- 
fore it  came  before  the  Committee  on  Irrigation,  it  is  here  in  various 
forms,  and  while  I  dp  not  desire  personally  to  take  the  time  of  the 
committee,  I.  would  like  to  have  the  opportunity  of  being  heard.  I 
have  never  asked  that  before,  although  I  introduced  one  of  these  bills. 
I  would  like  to  present  my  views  on  this  legislation  before  the  com- 
mittee, and  to  that  end  I  would  like  to  have  about  30  minutes  time 
before  the  committee  gets  through. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  you  will  have  that  opportunity,  Judge 
Eaker. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Instead  of  talking  on  the  amendments  when  they  come 
up.  there  are  some  concrete  ideas  that  have  been  discussed  in  various 
ways  that  might  or  might  not  assist  the  committee.  I  have  been 
living  in  a  part  of  the  country  where  this  work  has  been  done  for 
40  years,  and  I  have  been  working  here  in  Congress  for  eight  years. 
I  have  made  it  my  business  to  investigate  some  of  the  features'of  it. 
If  I  am  not  imposing  upon  the  committee,  I  would  like  to  have  the 
opportunity  to  present  those  ideas  to  them. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  the  committee  will  be  glad  to  hear  you. 
There  is  a  motion  before  the  committee,  put  by  Mr.  Ferris. 

(The  motion  being  put,  it  was  unanimously  adopted.) 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  THOMAS  C.  ATKESON,  REPRESENTATIVE  OF 
THE  NATIONAL  GRANGE,  PATRONS  OF  HUSBANDRY. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Will  you  state  whom  you  represent,  Mr.  Atkeson? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  unfortunately  I  am 
rather  at  a  disadvantage  in  not  being  very  well  this  morning,  and  so 
less  than  15  minutes  will  satisfy  me.  I  represent  officially  the 
organization  in  this  country  known  as  the  Patrons  of  Husbandry. 
Some  of  you,  perhaps,  have  heard  of  it  by  the  name  "  The  Grange." 
This  organization  is  53  years  old,  and  it  is  made  up  entirely  of  pro- 
ducing farmers  and  their  families.  It  has  lived  long  enough  to  have 
learned  some  things  by  experience  and  by  age.  If  it  has  not  learned 
anything  in  these  53  years,  it  ought  to  have  been  chloroformed  a  good 
many  years  ago.  Now,  this  organization  has  throughout  the  country 
a  membership  of  nearly  1,000,000.  It  is  not  making  much  noise;  it 
is  not  socialistic;  it  is  not  bolshevistic;  but  it  represents  the  solid, 
conservative,  producing,  every-day  working  farmers  of  the  country 
from  Maine  to  California,  with  less  strength  in  the  cotton-growing 
States  than  in  any  other  section  of  the  country,  and  with  its  largest 
membership  in  the  State  of  New  York,  there  being  something  like 
140.000  members  in  that  State. 

Xow,  this  organization — or  this  national  body,  I  might  say — is 
made  up  of  subordinate  organizations  or  neighborhood  organizations, 
and  they  constitute  county  organizations  through  their  representa- 
tives; and  then  they  have  State  organizations  and  a  national  or- 
ganization. The  national  organization  is  made  up  by  delegates  from 
the  various  States.  At  its  meeting  in  the  city  of  Syracuse,  N.  Y., 
last  November  there  were  present  about  3,000  representative  farm- 
ers. They  were  not  making  much  noise  in  the  world,  but  they  were 
the  real  thing — the  men  who  earned  their  bread  by  the  sweat  of  their 


70  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

brow;  the  men  who  represent  a  conservative,  dependable  part  of 
America's  citizenship.  Now,  in  that  annual  meeting  at  Syracuse  last 
November  the  question  of  Secretary  Lane's  plan  for  taking  care  of 
the  soldiers  came  up,  and  it  was  discussed  deliberately  and  dispas- 
sionately, with  the  deepest  sort  of  patriotism,  and  with  a  desire  to 
do  all  things  that  human  ingenuity  could  suggest  that  were  reason- 
able and  defensible  in  the  interest  of  the  American  soldiers  who 
had  saved  civilization  on  the  battle  front  in  France.  It  was  de- 
veloped that  practically  all  the  cities  of  the  country  and  practically 
all  the  urban  population  were  favorable  to  this  proposition.  I  am 
not  going  into  the  details  of  Mr.  Mondell's  bill  or  any  other  specific 
proposition,  but  the  country  people  or,  the  people  on  the  farms,  re- 
gard this  plan  in  general  as  communistic,  and  we  are  not  communists. 
Therefore  they  passed  this  brief  resolution  in  reference  to  this 
proposition : 

Farms  for  soldiers:  We  oppose  the  proposed  plan  of  reclaiming  swamp  and 
arid  lands  for  returning  soldiers  as  unsound,  impracticable,  and  detrimental 
to  the  interests  of  the  Nation  and  agriculture. 

There  is  an  abundance  of  unteiwnte<J  farms  near  marlwt  centers  to  supply  all 
soldiers  who  may  wish  farm  land.  The  Government  should  meet  this  need  in 
this  way  so  that  they  may  become  self-supporting  and  useful  without  waste  and 
delay. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Where  was  that  resolution  passed? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Last  November  by  the  National  Grange  in  its  an- 
nual meeting  held  at  Syracuse,  N.  Y . 

Mr.  FERRIS.  With  how  many  members  present? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  There  are  about  1,000,000  individual  members. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  How  many  members  were  present? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Thirty-three  States  were  represented,  and  there 
were  approximately  3,000  farmers  present.  I  can  not  tell  you  ex- 
actly the  number. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Was  the  matter  fully  discussed  there  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  This  proposition  was  discussed  a  full  half  day. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Do  you  recall  who  spoke  on  the  subject? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  No,  sir ;  they  were  so  numerous. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Did  anybody  present  it  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  In- 
terior Department? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  No,  sir;  there  was  nobody  from  the  Interior  Depart- 
ment. We  are  recognizing  the  fact,  of  course,  that  everybody  has  the 
right  to  have  his  own  position. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  simply  wanted  to  see  what  consideration  it  had. 

Mr.  SMITH.  This  resolution  indicates  that  they  are  in  favor  of 
reclaiming  land  in  the  northern  and  eastern  sections  of  the  country, 
but  not  in  the  South  and  West. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  The  organization  is  strong  in  the  West — clear  across 
the  country  from  Maine  to  Oregon — but  it  is  not  strong  in  the 
Southern  States. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Your  resolution  is  particularly  directed  against 
the  irrigation  of  the  arid  lands  and  the  reclamation  of  swamp  lands. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir.  The  resolution  is,  in  general  terms, 
against  the  Lane  plan. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  did  anyone  give  the  Secretary's  view  before 
that  meeting?  His  purpose  is  not  solely  1o  reclaim  tlui  arid  lands  of 
the  West,  or  the  swamp  lands  of  the  South.  The  Secretary  in  his  let- 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  71 

ter  particularly  calls  to  the  attention  of  the  country  the  lands  that  arc 
in  the  East,  or  the  very  lands  that  are  referred  to  in  the  latter  part 
of  your  resolution.  He  says  here :  "  Within  50  miles  of  the  city  of 
Washington,  both  in  the  States  of  Maryland  and  Virginia,  there  are 
large  bodies  of  land  for  development,"  and  he  goes  on  and  calls  to  the 
attention  of  the  country  and  to  Congress  the  lands  that  are  in  the 
East,  stating  specifically  that  less  than  one-third  of  any  funds  ap- 
propriated can  be  devoted  to  the  reclamation  of  the  arid  lands  of  the 
West.  Who  represented  the  State  of  Oregon  at  that  meeting  of  the 
grange  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Mr.  C.  E.  Spence,  as  I  remember,  was  a  member 
of  the  reconstruction  committee,  and  he  took  a  very  active  position. 
He  is  master  of  the  Oregon  State  Grange. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Spence  lives  in  the  western  part  of  the  State, 
in  the  humid,  rainy,  part  of  the  State  of  Oregon.  What  western 
members  are  upon  your  legislative  or  executive  committee? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  The  executive  committee  was  in  this  city  this  week. 
The  executive  committee  is  composed  of  Messrs.  Sherman  J.  Lowell, 
of  Fredonia,  N.  Y.;  W.  N.  Cady,  Middlebury,  Vt;  Thomas  C. 
Atkeson,  of  Buffalo,  W.  Va. ;  and  Oliver  Wilson,  of  Peoria,  111. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  who  composes  your  legislative  committee? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  The  legislative  committee  is  made  up  of  Mr.  Wilson, 
of  Illinois,  Mr.  L.  J.  Taber,  of  Barnesville,  Ohio,  and  myself. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Wilson  is  from  Illinois? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  you  are  from  West  Virginia  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  Mr.  Taber  is  from  Ohio? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  no  man  west  of  the  Mississippi  River  on 
either  your  legislative  or  your  executive  committee? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  No,  sir.  There  is  a  reason  for  that,  because  most 
of  our  meetings  are  held  in  the  East,  and  a  man  from  California 
would  have  to  travel  a  good  ways  to  attend  the  meetings.  I  am 
not  speaking  for  this  committee,  but  I  am  speaking  for  this  organi- 
zation and  the  action  it  took  at  this  meeting  in  Syracuse. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  familiarity  have  you  yourself  with  irri- 
gated lands? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  have  spent  several  months  on  some  of  the  Govern- 
ment projects  in  the  West. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  long  ago  was  that  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  It  was  in  1916. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Have  you  ever  farmed  irrigated  land  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  No,  sir;  and  I  do  not  want  to. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  know  the  relative  productivity  of  the  irri- 
gated lands  and  the  other  lands  of  the  country  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  went  over  some  irrigated  lands  in  western  Colo- 
rado that  had  once  been  occupied  and  that  had  been  productive, 
but  it  was  a  desert  and  people  were  getting  away  from  there.  It 
was  a  blamed  good  place  to  get  away  from,  they  said.  I  was  on 
the  ground  there. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  does  not  apply  to  irrigated  land  in  California. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  was  speaking  of 'Colorado. 


72  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  not  know  that  it  is  a  fact  that  the  irri- 
gated lands  upon  the  Government  reclamation  projects  in  the  year 
1917  produced  per  acre  more  than  $30  over  the  production  of  the 
general  farm  lands  of  the  country,  as  shown  by  the  last  census 
reports  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  think  that  is  true.  I  saw  them  thrashing  wheat 
in  Colorado  that  produced  at  the  rate  of  65  bushels  per  acre  on 
irrigated  land,  but  that  was  the  most  expensive  wheat  I  ever  saw 
thrashed.  The  cost  of  production  on  these  irrigated  lands,  when  you 
count  the  cost  of  getting  the  water  there  and  all  the  things  inci- 
dental to  it,  is  very  great.  It  is  not  cheap  farming  by  any  means. 
There  are  exceptions,  of  course,  to  that  general  rule. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  ,  We  are  concerned  at  this  particular  time  with  this 
particular  bill,  which  provides  that  the  projects  shall  be  selected — 
and  that  does  not  mean  irrigation  projects — with  a  view  to  the 
development  of  one  or  more  projects  in  each  of  the  several  States 
in  which  suitable  projects  may  be  found.  Therefore  it  is  not  an 
irrigation  bill. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  understand  that. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  would  like  to  say,  further,  if  you  are  a  little 
prejudiced  against  irrigation,  that  I  have  in  my  district  the  fourth 
agricultural  county  in  the  United  States,  producing  last  year 
$33,000,000  worth  of  crops,  $30,000,000  of  which  was  due  to  irriga- 
tion. That  is  a  very  creditable  showing  for  irrigation. 

Mr.  GRAHAM.  Has  your  organization  taken  the  same  attitude  to- 
ward the  drainage  of  lands  that  they  have  toward  the  irrigated 
lands? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  They  object  to  the  whole  proposition,  not  as  mat- 
ters of  detail,  but  in  principle.  Our  objection  is  based  upon  a  dif- 
ferent theory  that  I  am  coming  to — different  from  anything  that 
has  been  brought  out  by  any  questions  asked — and  that  is,  we  believe 
that  this  whole  proposition  is  fundamentally  un-American,  un- 
democratic, undesirable,  and  indefensible. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  the  last  part  of  your  resolution  you  state: 
"  There  is  an  abundance  of  untenanted  farms  near  market  centers 
to  supply  all  soldiers  who  may  wish  to  farm  lands.  The  Government 
should  meet  this  need  in  this  way  so  that  they  may  become  self- 
supporting  and  useful  without  waste  and  delay." 

Mr.  VAILE.  Would  not  that  apply  to  some  of  the  farm  lands  in 
Colorado  that  you  say  are  deserted? 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  would  seem  that  the  scheme  is  all  right  in  so  far 
as  it  relates  to  the  untenanted  farms  in  the  neighborhood  where  the 
^members  of  this  organization  live,  but  that  the  same  policy  should 
not  be  applied  to  any  other  section  of  the  country. 

Mr.  BEN  HAM.  Mr.  Chairman,  here  is  a  gentleman  representing  the 
largest  farmers'  organization  in  the  United  States.  That  organiza- 
tion has  asked  for  15  minutes  in  which  to  present  its  views,  and  I 
suggest  that  you  allow  this  gentleman  to  use  that  15  minutes,  and 
then,  if  you  w*ant  to  cross-question  him,  dp  so.  I  think,  however,  that 
we  should  allow  him  to  use  that  15  minutes  without  being  inter- 
rupted. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  the  committee  will  be  willing  to  extend 
the  gentleman's  time. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  73 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  I  had  come  to  the  place  where  I  could  say  all  that  I 
have  to  say  in  a  very  few  minutes.  What  we  say  in  favor  of  de- 
veloping those  untenanted  and  unoccupied  farm  lands  is  this,  that 
they  are  available  under  our  land-bank  provisions  to  anybody  who 
can  avail  himself  of  them  as  an  individual.  Our  organization  is 
fundamentally  opposed  to  anything  that  is  paternalistic,  socialistic, 
communistic,  bolshevistic,  or  anything  of  that  kind.  We  can  not 
understand  wh}7,  if  it  is  a  good  thing  to  provide  farm  homes  at 
Government  expense,  or  the  means  to  make  a  living  to  the  American 
soldier — and  nobody  has  any  more  sympathy  wyith  them  than  we 
have — we  should  not  set  them  up  in  the  mercantile  business,  in  the 
manufacturing  business,  or  in  some  other  business  in  competition 
with  somebody  else,  rather  than  in  competition  with  us,  at  Govern- 
ment expense.  Xow,  you  have  the  point  in  a  nutshell.  If  there  is 
any  living  many  who  can  tell  me  why  in  providing  for  these  sol- 
diers you  should  not  set  them  up  in  Washington  city  or  some  other 
city  at  Government  expense,  as  well  as  to  set  them  up  in  competition 
with  me,  I  would  like  to  hear  it. 

Mr.  VAILE.  I  do  not  want  to  interrupt  you,  if  you  wish  to  proceed 
further  along  that  line,  but  has  your  committee  examined  the  par- 
ticular provisions  of  this  bill  as  to  the  sale  of  land  to  soldiers?  Mr. 
Atke-on.  did  your  committee  examine  the  particular  provisions  of 
this  bill  with  reference  to  the  sale  of  the  land  to  the  soldiers? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Did  you  observe  that  the  price  is  to  be  as  near  as 
practicable  the  price  of  other  land  in  that  vicinity? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes. 

Mr.  VAILE.  And  that  nothing  is  given  as  a  donation  or  gratuity? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  Suppose  you  set  them  up  in  business  in  Washing- 
ton  

Mr.  VAILE  (continuing).  And  I  was  going  to  state  further  that 
the  purpose  is  to  establish  individual  homes,  the  very  opposite  of 
socialism  and  bolshevism. 

Mr.  A  TKESOX.  It  is  doing  it  at  Government  expense,  which  is  State 
socialism. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Xo;  not  at  Government  expense,  because  every 
dollar  is  to  be  repaid. 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  That  is  very  doubtful,  but.  I  would  like  you  to  meet 
the  other  proposition.  Why  shouldn't  they  set  them  up  in  business 
here  ? 

Mr.  VAILK.  Why.  indeed,  should  they  not,  if  they  pay  for  it? 

Mi-.  ATKESOX.  Why  don't  you  do  it,  We  will  withdraw  our  ob- 
jection if  you  do  that. 

Mr.  VAILE.  If  you  can  show  us  other  lines  of  business  which  would 
be  attractive  to  the  soldiers,  and  which  could  be  paid  for  by  the 
soldiers,  it  might  be  well  enough  for  us  to  go  into  that,  but  that  is 
not  the  question  which  is  before  us  now. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Atkeson,  I  would  like  to  ask  you  a  question 
and  I  will  not  take  it  out  of  your  time.  Secretary  Lane  replied  to 
the  specific  point  that  you  raise  at  the  time  the  bill  carried  an  appro- 
priation of  $100,000.000,  and  here  is  what  the  Secretary  had  to  say 
on  that  point : 

"  An  appropriation  of  $100,000,000  "—of  course  this  is  now  $500,- 
000.000 — "  would  provide  for  the  construction  of  projects  containing 


74  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

approximately  20,000  farms,  or,  as  a  rough  estimate,  a  total  of  only 
about  1,500,000  acres  of  cultivated  lands.  There  are  at  present  in 
the  United  States  nearly  7,000,000  farms,  so  that  the  addition  of 
these  20,000  farms  would  mean  an  increase  of  less  than  one-third  of 
1  per  cent.  The  improved  land  in  farms  amounts  to  something  like 
550,000,000  acres,  so  that  the  addition  of  1,500,000  acres  to  this  area 
already  under  cultivation  could  amount  to  less  than  three-tenths  of  1 
per  cent.  If  continued  for  10  years,  the  increase  would  be  only  3  per 
cent,  while  the  population  is  increasing  five  or  six  times  as  fast.  It 
can  readily  be  seen  that  there  is  little  cause  for  alarm  that  overpro- 
duction and  depression  of  prices  of  farm  products  would  result  from 
the  construction  proposed  at  the  present  time." 

Now,  that  is  the  view  of  Secretary  Lane  upon  that  objection. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  have  been  over  that  with  Secretary  Lane. 

Mr.  GRAHAM.  Mr.  Atkeson.  will  you  pardon  me — 

Mr.  ATKESON.  There  is  just  one  other  angle  to  this  proposition 
that  I  want  to  present  and  then  I  am  through. 

Mr.  GRAHAM.  I  want  to  ask  you  a  question  before  you  close. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  That  is,  as  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  am  through. 
There  is  large  agitation  of  the  question  of  cheaper  food  products  in 
this  country  and  everybody  wants  everybody  else  to  go  back  to  the 
farm  except  himself,  and  we  farmers  have  just  got  a  little  nauseated 
with  that  attitude  in  the  public  mind,  and  we  are  confronted  with 
this  condition,  as  I  said  to  a  prominent  labor  union  man  the  other 
day,  that  eight  hours  a  day  and  $1  an  hour  means  $6  wheat,  and  I 
defy  any  man  on  my  farm  to  produce  it  for  less  on  that  basis.  Let 
me  make  one  other  statement.  There  are  in  this  country  to-day 
three  jobs  anxious  to  be  done  for  every  man  in  it. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Does  Mr.  Gompers  agree  with  you  about  that  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  But  those  jobs  are  out  on  the  farms  of  this  country 
and  not  in  Washington  or  New  York;  and  behind  this  propaganda 
is  this  idea — I  will  not  say  who  is  responsible  for  the  idea — that  this 
will  afford  employment  for  somebody  immediately  to  go  to  work  and 
reclaim  this  land"  in  order  that  the  wage  scale  of  this  country  may 
be  kept  up.  If  you  get  cheaper  food  in  this  country,  somebody  has 
got  to  be  paid  an  adequate  wage  and  price  in  comparison  with  what 
men  get  for  their  time  and  energy  in  other  occupations,  or  this  country 
is  going  to  go  hungry.  There  is  not  any  escape  from  that.  We  are 
paying  right  in  this  city  now  a  carpenter,  and  a  jack-leg  carpenter 
at  that,  with  hair  grayer  than  mine,  85  cents  an  hour  to  do  some  little 
repairing.  Since  the  1st  of  January  I  have  been  living  in  this  city, 
so  I  know  something  about  city  prices.  I  will  say,  absolutely,  that 
wheat  can  not  be  produced  on  that  scale  at  less  than  $6  a  bushel,  and 
that  means  three  times,  approximately,  what  you  paid  for  your  bis- 
cuits this  morning.  Now,  it  means  that  or  there  won't  be  any  biscuits. 
There  is  not  any  escape  from  that.  I  defy  you  to  get  away  from  it. 
For  more  than  half  a  century  I  have  been  raising  wheat  that  made 
biscuits,  and  I  know  what  I  am  talking  about  when  I  get  on  that  end 
of  the  agricultural  problem. 

Now,  behind  this  propaganda  are  the  people  who  want  more 
farm  produce  and  the  people  who  want  higher  wages  and  don't  want 
to  earn  them  out  on  the  farms  of  this  country,  and  it  is  because  of 
those  things,  as  well  as  a  number  of  other  things,  that  our  organi/.a- 
tion  believes  that  this  is  absolutely  indefensible.  If  somebody  wants 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  75 

si  farm,  under  our  farm-loan  system  he  can  find  it  and  find  it  where 
he  wants  it.  This  other  project  takes  a  large  area  and  at  Government 
expense  prepares  it  for  cultivation  and  for  competition  with  the 
farms  that  are  already  underfarmed.  I  could  tell  you  people  a  lot 
of  things  that  are  absolutely  prevailing  .at  this  day  on  the  farms  of 
this  country  that  would  interest  you,  to  say  the  least  of  it. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  You  stated  a  while  ago  that  behind  this  proposition 
there  was  certain  propaganda  put  out  by  certain  people.  Who  are 
those  people  ?  You  stated  a  while  ago  that  the  Southern  States  were 
not  very  well  represented  in  the  Grange,  and  I  would  like  to  know 
just  who  those  people  are. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  As  a  general  proposition  the  people  in  all  the  cities, 
regardless  of  occupation — and  that  represents  about  three  out  of 
four  of  our  voting  population — favor  this  scheme  without  regard 
to  detail,  but  the  people  with  whom  it  is  to  come  in  competition  are 
practically  unanimously  opposed  to  it.  Xow,  then,  to  reverse  that, 
if  you  were  to  spend  $500.000,000  of  the  public  money  to  put  the 
returned  soldiers  in  competition  with  the  manufacturing  business 
or  the  mercantile  business,  or  any  other  business  that  affects  this 
three-fourths  of  our  population,  somebody  would  squeal. 

Mr.  YAILK.  Let  me  cite  you  a  case  in  practically  every  city  of  this 
country,  and  right  here  iii  Washington.  There  are  hospitals  where 
men  who  formerly  had  no  particular  occupation,  except  that  of  serv- 
ing their  country  recently,  are  now  being  made  into  plumbers,  car- 
penters, and  electricians  and  trained  for  all  the  trades. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes.  They  are  also  being  trained  in  agriculture, 
and  we  heartily  indorse  that  whole  plan  of  vocational  education. 
This  is  not  setting  them  up  in  business. 

Mr.  VAILE.  They  do  not  pay  for  that  training,  and  every  one  of 
those  men  is  being  returned  to  industry  and  put  in  competition — 
established  in  business,  virtually — with  somebody  who  is  now  in  it. 
But  we  do  not  hear  any  squeal  about  that. 

Mr.  GRAHAM.  Mr.  Atkeson,  let  me  ask  you  a  question.  Do  you 
think  it  was  a  proper  thing  for  the  United  States  Government  to 
pass  the  act  giving  soldiers  of  the  War  of  1812  land  grants? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  think  so. 

Mr.  GRAHAM.  Do  you  agree  with  the  legislation  enacted  after  the 
Civil  War  giving  the  Civil  War  soldiers  homesteads? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  have  no  objection  to  that;  but  it  broke  up  many 
farmers  in  the  East. 

Mr.  GRAHAM.  Do  you  agree  with  that?  Do  you  think  it  was  right 
to  do  that  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  think  it  was  very  questionable.  You  can  go 
through  New  York  and  New  England,  and  through  my  own  State, 
and  M>e  the  effect  of  that.  When  you  got  west  of  the  Mississippi 
it  did  not  have  that  effect;  but  it  practically  paralyzed  agriculture 
for  nearly  half  a  century. 

Mr.  GRAHAM.  What  I  am  trying  to  get  at  is 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  referring  to  the  homestead  laws? 

Mr.  GRAHAM.  Yes.  What  I  am  trying  to  get  at  is  whether  you 
think  it  was  wrong  to  do  that? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  think  it  was  wrong  to  break  up  one  class  of 
citizenship  by  the  Government  setting  up  competition. 


76  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  GRAHAM.  Then,  if  your  association  had  been  passing  upon 
that,  you  would  have  opposed  the  homestead  laws  of  1863? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  We  are  opposed  to  wholesale  homestead  laws. 

Mr.  GRAHAM.  Well,  would  you  have  been  opposed  to  the  laws 
that  were  passed? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  It  is  just  a  question  of  whether  you  are  going  to 
set  up  competition  at  Government  expense  with  any  important  ele- 
ment of  its  citizenship. 

Mr.  GRAHAM.  Of  course,  you  appreciate  that  that  was  done  largely 
on  account  of  the  services"  that  those  men  had  rendered  to  their 
Government. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Well,  it  was  open  to  anybody. 

Mr.  GRAHAM.  And  that  element  also  enters  into  this  legislation. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  All  a  man  had  to  do  was  to  be  able  to  get  out  there, 
and,  as  somebody  said.  "  while  he  was  getting,  get  a  plenty/' 

Mr.  FERRIS.  There  were  special  courtesies  accorded  to  soldiers 
that  the  ordinary  citizen  did  not  have. 

Mr.  GRAHAM.  I  understand  so. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  With  three-fourths  of  the  voters  of  this  country 
living  in  the  cities,  the  man  on  the  farm  don't  have  very  much  show. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Atkeson,  let  11:3  call  your  attention  to  this. 
The  resolutions  to  which  you  have  called  our  attention  is  preceded 
by  this  resolution  passed  at  the  meeting  to  which  you  have  referred : 

Land  tenantry:  Land  tenantry  is  increasing;  farm  ownership  is  concentrat- 
ing in  the  hands  of  wealthy  land  holders  and  abandoned  farms  are  becoming 
too  common.  Legislation  should  be  ('evised  to  encourage  farm-home  owning 
mid  to  discourage  land  speculation  and  tenantry. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Isn't  that  sound? 

Mr.  VAII.E.  Absolutely. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  it  is. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Mr.  Atkeson,  let  me  ask  you  this  question.  You  ap- 
pear to  be  opposed  to  this  legislation  which  is  intended  to  benefit 
the  soldiers,  and  incidentally,  to  reduce  the  high  cost  of  living  to 
people  who  work  for  daily  wages.  What  is  your  solution  of  the 
problem  confronting  the  country  when  you  have  to  pay  50  or  CO 
cents  for  beefsteak  and  $12  and  $15  a  barrel  for  flour?  What  is  your 
solution  of  that  problem? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  have  not  any  solution,  and  no  one  else  seems  to 
have  any,  but  this  is  a  fact,  and  it  covers  more  than  half  a  century, 
the  average  farmer  in  this  country,  in  order  to  make  ends  meet  and 
make  a  living  has  worked  from  12  to  15  hours  a  day  and  his  chil- 
dren from  2  years  of  age  to  old  age  have  worked  about  that  many 
hours.  Now,  that  has  come  to  a  sudden  stop  in  this  country.  Farm 
hands  are  quitting  on  an  eight-hour  day  and  the  farmers  are  now 
advocating  the  discontinuance  of  any  labor  on  the  part  of  their 
children  under  16  years  of  age.  and  tliey  will  make  an  effort  to  stop 
every  man's  plow  in  the  furrow  at  5  o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 

Mr.  BARBOTJR.  Have  the  farmers  in  your  country  tried  the  eight- 
hour  day  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Oh,  yes;  we  are  doing  that  now  on  my  farm  down 
in  West  Virginia. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Is  it  working  successfully? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  We  are  absolutely  working  on  an  eight-hour  day. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  77 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  sons  of  those  very  farmers 
would  very  largely  be  the  beneficiaries  of  this  act? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  do  not  think  anybody1  would  be  a  beneficiary.  I 
am  here  presenting  this  matter  only  in  a  representative  capacity. 
My  personal  belief  is  that  it  would  not  hurt  anybody  very  much, 
because  the  opportunity  to  get  on  a  farm  to  the  people' who  V ant  to 
get  there  is  wide  open,  and  we  are  inviting  them  to  come  in,  and 
we  are  trying  to  prevent  tenantry,  and  the  safest  part  of  our  citi- 
zenship is  the  land-owning  farmer  citizenship,  but  we  do  not  believe 
it  should  be  brought  about  by  direct  Government  donation. 

(Thereupon  the  committee  adjourned  until  Saturday,  May  31, 
1919,  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.) 


COMMITTEE  ox  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS, 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 
Washington,  D.  C.,  Saturday,  May  31,  1919. 

The  committee  this  day  met,  Hon.  N.  J.  Sinnott  (chairman)  pre- 
siding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen,  the  committee  will  be  in  order.  Mr. 
Chamberlain,  the  committee  would  be  pleased  to  hear  your  statement. 
Tell  the  committee  who  you  are  and  whom  you  represent. 

STATEMENT  OF  ME.  HOYT  CHAMBERLAIN,  SECRETARY  NATIONAL 
CIVIC  BETTERMENT  LEAGUE. 

Mr.  CHAMBERLAIN.  I  represent  the  National  Civic  Betterment 
League,  with  an  organization  in  45  States,  an  organization  whi ?h. 
as  its  name  indicates,  is  working  along  broad  lines  of  civic  better- 
ment. I  have  been  sent  here  by  this  organization  to  try  to  present  one 
or  two  phases  of  this  soldier's  and  sailor's  settler  act  which,  from  the 
reflex  of  our  members,  appears  to  our  organization  to  be  extremely 
important. 

First,  I  wish  to  state  that  the  attitude  of  this  committee,  the  per- 
sonnel of  this  committee,  has  been  one  of  great  gratification.  The 
interest  shown,  the  desire  to  get  at  the  facts,  at  the  purposes  of  this 
bill,  are  to  my  mind  an  index  of  a  searching,  careful,  broad  act  which 
\vill  protect  the  interests  of  the  Government  as  well  as  the  proposed 
beneficiaries  under  the  act. 

I  will  digress  for  one  moment  to  express  the  surprise  I  experi- 
enced in  this  committee  room  on  Thursday  that  the  representative 
of  a  great  national  organization  like  the  National  Grange  should  put 
himself  in  an  attitude  so  unfortunate,  and  I  feel  reflecting  a  misrep- 
resentation of  what  would  be  the  attitude  of  most  of  the  members 
of  the  grange  if  they  had  been  knowing  of  the  true  import  of  this 
bill.  Mr.  Atkinson's  statements  might  be  taken  seriously  were  they 
not,  so  manifestly  absurd  and  contradictory.  The  attitude  of  Mr. 
Atkinson  and  the  grange  brings  to  mind  a  bunch  of  our  men  in  Jack- 
hon  County,  Mo.,  who,  after  the  coming  of  the  local  option  law,  started 
to  form  a  cooperative  bar.  Everything  went  lovely  until  the  question 
came  up  as  to  who  should  be  barkeeper,  and  on  that  point  there  de- 
veloped some  di'fference  of  opinion,  so  to  keep  peace  in  the  organiza- 
tion they  concluded  to  take  a  ballot  as  to  who  should  be  barkeeper, 


78  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

and  when  the  ballots  were  looked  over  each  man  had  one  vote.  I 
can  not  help  thinking  if  Mr.  Atkinson  had  been  a  member  of  that 
cooperative  association  he  would  have  gotten  one  vote,  inasmuch  as 
he  was  voting  for  himself,  talking  for  himself  from  a  narrow  stand- 
point before  this  committee. 

One  of  the  points  which  I  wish  to  put  stress  on,  and  really  it  is 
hardly  necessary  before  this  committee,  is  the  need,  the  urgency  of 
the  enactment  of  this  legislation.  These  men  are  home  again  after 
an  experience  which  has  tried  their  souls.  As  quickly  as  the  great 
harvests  are  over  these  men,  a  great  many  of  them,  probably  more 
than  50  per  cent  of  them,  from  the  experience  I  have  had  and  the 
personal  contact  with  them  in  different  parts  of  the  country,  are 
going  to  find  themselves  without  employment  in  what  has  previously 
been  their  chosen  vocations. 

Granting  for  the  sake  of  argument  that  many  of  them  will  find 
temporary  employment  in  the  harvests,  as  quickly  as  that  work  is 
over  they  will  find  their  way  back  to  the  larger  places,  where  there  is 
not  the  place  for  them.  Doctors,  lawyers,  professional  men  find  their 
practices  dissipated,  and  they  are  unable  to  pick  up  where  they  left 
off.  Clerks,  various  mechanics  find  themselves,  and  will  find  them- 
selves, out  of  employment,  away  from  the  conditions  that  they  have 
been  working  under,  and  will  look  to  this  Congress,  to  this  committee, 
to  enact  something  which  will  give  them  the  same  kind  of  oppor- 
tunities which  were  given  to  the  veterans  of  the  Civil  War,  only  we 
hope  on  broader  and  more  comprehensive  lines;  by  all  means  legis- 
lation which  will  give  them  employment  away  from  the  centers  of 
population.  And  by  personal  conversation  with  hundreds  of  these 
men  I  find  that  they  are  desirous  of  getting  back  to  the  land  in  a 
practical  way.  The  urgency  of  this  legislation,  whatever  it  shall  be, 
is  of  the  utmost  importance,  that  these  men  may  be  put  to  work  as 
quickly  as  possible. 

The  other  thing  that  I  wish  to  speak  to  this  committee  about  is 
the  question  of  human  interest.  The  civic  conditions  in  the  larger 
cities  of  this  country  are  deplorable.  The  status  in  the  larger  cities 
is  one  of  a  political  oligarchy  which  is  dominated  by  a  few  men  who 
use  the  men  in  the  lower  wards,  in  the  wards  of  the  cities  where  the 
population  has  not  the  opportunity,  the  advantages,  to  make  its  way ; 
for  all  practical  purposes  these  political  agencies  prostitute  them. 
From  every  standpoint  and  from  the  viewpoint  of  our  league  in  par- 
ticular, which  seeks  to  alleviate  and  better  these  civic  conditions,  these 
men  should  keep  away  from  those  places — these  population  centers. 

It  does  not  require  any  statement  from  me  to  emphasize  the  im- 
portance, and  particularly  for  men  who  have  come  from  the  country, 
of  urging  and  encouraging  them  in  a  practical  way  to  get  back  to 
the  environment  of  the  country,  where  they  can  make  their  way  under 
conditions  which  they  have  been  raised  in,  just  as  fast  as  possible. 

I  earnestly  hope,  and  on  behalf  of  the  league  I  desire  to  express 
the  confidence  I  feel,  after  having  attended  these  hearings,  that  this 
committee  of  Congress  will  be  fully  equal  to  the  responsibilities 
which  are  before  them  in  this  act,  and  put  into  force  promptly,  with- 
out delay,  action  which  will  permit  very  largely  the  solving  of  the 
unemployment  in  this  country  through  the  return  of  a  large  nuniluM- 
of  men  overseas.  Gentlemen,  I  thank  you. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  79 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Chamberlain,  will  you  give  the  committee 
some  further  information  about  your  league — its  organization  and 
membership  ? 

Mr.  CHAMBERLAIN.  Our  organization  is  one  which  works  quietly. 
We  avoid  publicity  and  brass-band  methods.  Our  members  are 
largely  made  up  of  merchants,  quite  a  sprinkling  of  professional 
men,  clerical  men  and  women,  people  who  are  thoughtful,  who  see 
the  trend  of  events  with  reference  to  trouble  which  may  ensue  when 
enough  people  are  unemployed.  It  has  been  aptly  written  that  the 
idle  brain  is  the  devil's  workshop.  To  keep  a  man  busy  is  his  salva- 
tion. The  league  has  had,  and  is  to-day  having,  cases  dealing  with 
abuses  not  only  in  cities  but  in  large  institutions  which  produce  in 
an  agricultural  way  on  a  large  scale.  For  instance,  we  have  not 
long  ago  had  to  deal  with  a  situation  with  reference  to  the  sugar-beet 
culture  in  Nebraska.  There  seemed  to  exist  there  a  condition  where, 
owing  to  there  being  but  one  market  for  the  beets,  the  producers  were 
almost  required  to  sell  for  whatever  was  offered  them  for  their  prod- 
uct. The  realization  was  entirely  different  from  the  promises  held 
out  to  them.  The  conditions  under  which  they  were  working  and 
paid  were  represented  to  us  to  be  very  unsatisfactory.  I  am  bound 
to  state  that  when  the  conditions  were  brought  to  the  attention  of 
those  in  charge  I  think  there  was  an  honest  effort  made  to  relieve 
them. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Chamberlain  may  have  stated  it,  but  I  did  not  get 
it.  What  is  your  home? 

Mr.  CHAMBERLAIN.  My  home  is  at  Kansas  City. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  is  your  business? 

Mr.  CHAMBERLAIN.  Financial  broker. 

Mr.  RAKER.  How  long  have  you  been  in  that  business? 

Mr.  CHAMBERLAIN.  I  have  been  in  that  immediate  line,  so  far  as 
war  conditions  would  permit,  since  1905. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Before  that  were  you  ever  a  farmer? 

Mr.  CHAMBERLAIN.  I  have  been  a  farmer,  a  practical  farmer. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  How  old  an  organization  is  that  and  how  extensive 
are  its  numbers? 

Mr.  CHAMBERLAIN.  It  is  altogether  a  voluntary  organization,  vol- 
untary, too,  as  to  maintenance,  money  contributions.  We  have  been 
working  since  1897.  Our  organization  to-day  is  more  than  23  years 
old.  I  would  state  that  judging  from  the  total  of  our  roll — and  we 
judge  that  by  a  review  every  three  years  of  our  lists  and  the  check- 
ing up  of  correspondence  which  we  have  from  members — we  have 
at  this  time  in  the  neighborhood  of  185,000  members. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Your  business  is  to  better  conditions  for  laboring  men 
in  cities  and  city  conditions  generally? 

Mr.  CHAMBERLAIN.  More  especially  in  the  cities  and  in  the  larger 
towns. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Its  work  has  not  been  to  go  out  into  the  country  and 
make  conditions  for  the  country  boy  and  girl  better? 

Mr.  CHAMBERLAIN.  Yes;  that  is  also  our  business. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  you  have  not  devoted  much  time  to  that? 

Mr.  CHAMBERLAIN.  Not  so  much  as  to  urban  conditions. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Your  idea — I  just  took  a  little  memorandum  here — 
was  that  legislation  should  be  enacted  for  the  purpose  of  giving  the 
unemployed  employment ;  is  that  your  theory  of  this  bill  ? 
133319—19 6 


80  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  CHAMBERLAIN.  Well,  that  is  only  the  first  thing.  Our  con- 
ception— I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  correct  or  not — is  that  the  bill 
is  designed  first  to  give  employment  to  our  returning  service  men 
and  women,  and  then  those  men  and  women,  being  able,  as  I  under- 
stand they  will  be  under  the  terms  of  this  act,  to  take  their  choice, 
their  pick,  of  the  different  sites  on  which  they  may  engage  in  the 
preparartory  work,  will  be  able  to  determine,  when  they  are  through 
with  the  preparatory  labor,  whether  that  particular  district  where 
they  have  been  working,  they  are  satisfied  with.  A  great  many  peo- 
ple go  to  places,  and  after  being  there  a  short  time  do  not  like  them. 
That  is  only  natural,  and  we  have  felt — I  am  speaking  now  for  the 
organization,  as  their  ideal  has  been  reflected  to  me  as  its  secre- 
tary— that  if  the  workers  on  the  preparatory  work  proposed  by  the 
various  projects  under  this  bill  should  not  be  satisfied  where  they 
have  been  working,  that  they  may  go  to  some  other  project  and  be- 
come settlers,  rather  than  the  one  with  which  they  may  have  become 
dissatisfied  for  one  reason  or  another. 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  is  not  your  theory  that  we  are  trying  to  enact  legis- 
lation for  the  unemployed  in  this  bill,  is  it? 

Mr.  CHAMBERLAIN.  For  the  unemployed? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  CHAMBERLAIN.  Soldiers  and  sailors. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  it  your  purpose,  is  it  your  theory  that  we  are  trying 
to  enact  legislation  to  give  all  the  soldiers,  whether  employed  or  not, 
a  home? 

Mr.  CHAMBERLAIN.  Certainly,  if  they  wish  a  home. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  would  not  have  any  objection  to  giving  a  man 
one  of  these  places,  one  of  these  homes,  and  let  him  go  and  file  on 
it  and  improve  it,  whether  he  worked  on  the  project  or  notj  would 
you? 

Mr.  CHAMBERLAIN.  Not  at  all ;  but  we  speak,  first,  of  the  problem 
of  employment. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  I  thought  this  bill  was  for  the  purpose  of  giving 
to  the  soldiers,  those  who  participated  in  this  war,  some  recogni- 
tion because  of  their  service  as  American  soldiers. 

Mr.  CHAMBERLAIN.  That  is  also  my  understanding. 

Mr.  TILLMAN.  Incidentally,  it  would  be  employment,  too? 

Mr.  CHAMBERLAIN.  My  understanding  of  the  purpose  of  the  act  is 
to  give  employment  to  the  unemployed  service  men,  preferably. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Will  you  tell  the  committee  how  and  what  legisla- 
tion can  be  enacted  whereby  we  can  go  into  these  cities  and  get 
these  boys  and  girls  out  of  the  cities  and  get  them  out  on  the  farm, 
when  they  have  no  inclination  for  farming;  get  them  out  on  the 
farm  and  get  them  to  work  and  make  a  home  for  themselves? 

Mr.  CHAMBERLAIN.  I  will  state  this,  that  from  the  experience  and 
contact  I  have  had  by  correspondence  and  personally  with  thousands 
of  our  members,  I  find  that  there  is  abroad  in  this  country  a  feeling 
of  unrest.  People  are  not  satisfied.  I  am  speaking  now  of  working 
people,  thoughtful,  conservative  working  people.  There  is  a  feeling 
of  dissatisfaction  among  them.  This  feeling,  as  regards  existence  at 
home  during  the  absence  of  the  heads  of  these  families  abroad,  lias 
been  greatly  augmented,  largely  by  reason  of  the  high  cost  of  livin.tr. 
Thousands  of  our  correspondents — our  members — believe  that  the 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  81 

time  has  come  when,  if  they  can  with  reasonable  Government  aid 
locate  in  a  place  or  places  climatically  congenial,  with  a  proper  de- 
gree of  care  and  instruction  in  farming  and  practical  agriculture,  they 
can  find  a  greater  measure  of  satisfaction  under  rural  conditions 
than  they  can  possibly  do  under  the  conditions  existent  to-day  where, 
owing  to  the  high  cost  of  living,  the  average  man  working  for  a 
wage,  by  the  time  he  has  settled  his  living  for  a  month,  has  done 
little  more  than  swap  dollars. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  You  speak  of  the  conditions  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  laborer  on  the  farm.  Are  you  acquainted  at  the  present  time 
with  labor  conditions  on  the  farm,  that  is  as  to  the  demand  for  it 
on  the  farm? 

Mr.  CHAMBERLAIN.  Yes ;  I  have  been  pretty  close  to  that  in  the  last 
two  months — especially  in  the  last  two  months. 

Mr.  BEXHAM.  I  have  been  for  several  years,  and  still  am,  and  my 
observations  are  not  in  harmony  with  yours.  Do  you  mean  to  leave 
the  impression  with  this  committee  that  men  desiring  to  labor  on 
the  farm  can  not  get  employment  12  months  in  the  year  on  the  farm  ? 

Mr.  CHAMBERLAIN.  I  certainly  do,  for  the  most  part.  In  the 
periods  of  great  harvests  in  the  West  there  is  always  a  hue  and  cry 
raised — a  fear  of  loss  of  crops  by  reason  of  insufficient  labor  in  the 
fields.  It  necessarily  follows  that  to  protect  these  crops  a  great  in- 
flux of  temporary  labor  is  necessary.  It  naturally  follows  that  when 
the  harvests  are  made,  there  is  no  longer  any  need  for  that  unusual 
influx  of  labor. 

Mr.  BEXHAM.  Is  that  a  theory  or  a  practical  fact? 

Mr.  CHAMBERLAIN.  That  is  a  practical  fact,  to  my  knowledge,  and 
I  think  that  the  Western  Members,  more  especially,  also  I  think  that 
Illinois  Members  will  perhaps  bear  this  out,  that  there  is  always  a 
great  demand  for  extra  labor  at  harvest  periods. 

The  CHARMAX.  Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  if  there  are  no  fur- 
there  questions  to  ask,  we  have  with  us  Mr.  Sterling,  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor,  who  has  to  make  a  statement  before  another 
committee  at  a  quarter  past  11. 

STATEMENT   OF  MR.   HENRY   STERLING,   LEGISLATIVE   AGENT, 
AMERICAN  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR,  WASHINGTON,  D  C. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  State  your  name  and  tell  the  committee  whom 
you  represent. 

Mr.  STERLING.  My  name  is  Henry  Sterling.  I  am  legislative  agent 
for  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  I  am  living  just  now  in 
Washington.  My  original  home  is  Boston. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  How  long  have  you  occupied  this  position? 

Mr.  STERLING.  Since  last  August.  I  desire,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  read 
to  you.  first,  the  official  declaration  of  the  organization  on  this  par- 
ticular point.  In  its  reconstruction  program  it  states : 

Legislation  also  should  be  enacted  which  will  give  the  Nation's  defenders 
the  opportunity  for  easy  and  ready  access  to  the  land.  Favorable  inducements 
should  be  provided  for  them  to  enter  agriculture  anfl  husbandry.  The  Govern- 
ment should  assume  responsibility  for  the  allotment  of  such  lands,  and  supply 
the  necessary  capital  for  its  development  and  cultivation,  with  such  safeguards 
as  will  protect  both  the  Government  and  the  discharged  soldier  and  sailor. 


82  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

You  will  note  there,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  our  point  of  view  is,  first 
of  all,  the  soldier  and  his  opportunity.  Of  course,  we  have  also  in 
view  the  matter  of  unemployment,  which  probably  has  been  thrashed 
to  death  before  your  committee — although  I  do  not  know  whether 
it  has  or  not.  I  assume  it  has  to  quite  a  degree. 

We  are  not  deceived,  Mr.  Chairman,  or  carried  away  by  any  de- 
lusion that  one  hundred  of  « very  hundred  soldiers  desire  to"  become  a 
farmer,  or  desire  a  country  life,  or  anything  of  that  kind,  nor  are  we 
deceived  into  the  idea  that  all  of  those  in  the  cities,  aside  from 
soldiers  and  sailors,  are  enamored  with  country  life.  We  believe  they 
are  in  the  cities  because  they  want  to  be  in  the  cities,  because  they  en- 
joy its  bright  lights,  its  movies,  and  its  close  contact  with  humanity. 
Many  of  them  came  from  the  farm  and  do  not  want  to  go  back. 
People  in  the  cities  are  there  because  they  want  to  be  there  and  we 
are  not  deluded  into  the  idea  that  all  these  returning  soldiers  are 
going  to  rush  to  the  farm,  or  anything  of  that  kind,  but  a  careful 
study  and  investigation  in  the  tenements  in  Boston,  and  the  experi- 
ence of  other  nations,  shows,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  out  of  those  who 
are  in  cities,  about  10  per  cent  of  the  workers — whether  they  be 
soldiers  or  not — 10  per  cent  of  the  workers  do  desire  to  take  ad- 
vantage of  some  such  opportunity  as  will  afford  them  a  foothold  in 
the  country  districts  and  a  chance  to  live  a  newer  and  a  different  and 
a  better  life.  Xow,  if  to  that  10  per  cent  among  the  soldiers — Mr. 
Secretary  Lane  figures  it  might  possibly  be  50  per  cent;  I  remember 
hearing  him  state  those  figures  the  other  day  when  I  was  in  here  a 
few  moments — it  might  possibly  reach  a  much  higher  per  cent  than 
10  per  cent,  but,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  offer  of  that  opportunity  to  all 
returning  soldiers  is  what  would  give  credit  to  the  Union,  to  the 
(lovernment,  to  the  people  of  this  Xation.  the  bare  offer  of  it,  and,  in 
so  far  as  it  is  taken  advantage  of,  we  have  a  solution  to  that  extent  of 
the  matter  of  employment  for  soldiers. 

It  is  not  my  belief  that  this  is  a  solution  for  unemployment,  this 
proposition.  It  is  a  relief  for  unemployment,  Mr.  Chairman.  It  is 
a  relief  to  the  general  ranks  of  labor,  because  if  only  10  per  cent,  the 
minimum  number  of  soldiers,  takes  advantage  of  it,  then  there  is  the 
relief  to  the  extent  of  at  least  300,000  workers.  Night  before  last,  I 
think  it  was,  I  read  in  the  evening  papers  the  statement  from  the, 
Labor  Department  that  in  so  many  cities,  and  it  stated  the  number  of 
cities — it  occurs  to  me  it  was  30  cities — there  were  327,000  unem- 
ployed looking  for  work  now.  I  am  not  going  to  stay  on  that  point. 

Mr.  SMELL.  Did  not  that  same  statement  say  that  the  conditions 
were  fast  adjusting  themselves  and  reaching  a  nearer  level  than  they 
had  in  some  time  '. 

Mr.  STERLING.  They  have  been  saying  that  since  last  Christmas. 

Mr.  SNELL.  I  saw  that  statement,  and  if  I  remember  correctly  it 
said  that  the  conditions  were  growing  for  the  betterment  of  em- 
ployment all  the  time. 

Mr.  STEELING.  It  said  the  conditions  were  much  better  than  they 
were  the  week  before.  I  remember  that  statement. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Sterling,  you  have  assumed  that  we  have  had 
considerable  information  on  the  matter  of  unemployment.  The  com- 
mittee lias  had  very  little  so  far  from  anyone  claiming  to  speak  with 
absolute  knowledge  or  precision  on  the 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  83 

Mr.  STERLING.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  be  glad  to  address  myself  to 
it,  then,  for  a  little  while,  merely  only  on  this  small  excuse,  that  if 
we  pass  this  bill  and  a  certain  number  of  soldiers  go  out  there,  it 
makes  no  difference  whether  it  is  a  large  number  or  whether  it  is  a 
small  number,  the  tendency  is  to  relieve  unemployment  to  a  certain 
degree. 

This  particular  proposition  or  this  method  of  dealing  with  the 
land  question  and  the  labor  question,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  no  new  thing. 
You  probably  know  that  it  has  been  more  or  less  dealt  with  all  over 
the  world,  but  in  New  Zealand  and  small  colonies  it  has  been  more 
thoroughly  dealt  with  than  in  any  other  nation  in  the  world,  and  I 
think  that  the  facts  of  that  situation  that  I  can  give  you  will  be  new 
to  the  committee. 

In  1892  and  1893, ,  in  commenting  on  New  Zealand,  spoke 

of  it  as  a  country  infested  with  tramps,  with  soup  kitchens,  and 
shelter  sheds  along  the  highways  and  byways,  where  £he  unemployed 
might  sleep  for  a  night.  That  is  something  we  never  heard  of  in 
this  country,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is  a  condition  a  little  worse  than  we 
have  ever  known  here.  We  have  known  of  soup  kitchens  and  mid- 
night bread  lines,  and  things  like  that,  but  to  erect  shelter  sheds 
along  the  highways  where  the  unemployed  might  spend  the  night 
is  a  little  further  than  we  have  ever  gone. 

In  1893  the  Government  inaugurated  a  policy  similar  to  this  here, 
and  followed  it  extensively  and  is  doing  it  up  to  the  present  day. 
The  Government  bought  lands,  subdivided  them,  prepared  and  made 
roads  and  bridge  and  things  like  that,  and  offered  the  lands  at  cost 
price  to  the  Government  and  easy  terms  to  whoever  desired  to  take 
them.  After  the  man  was  given  his  allotment  of  land,  he  was  given 
loans  with  which  to  till  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  is  in  New  Zealand  that  you  are  speaking  of? 

Mr.  STERLING.  This  is  in  New  Zealand,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  the  be- 
ginning of  1893,  and  I  want  to  tell  the  result  of  that  policy. 

Mr.  SNELL.  How  did  they  get  title  to  this  land?  Did  the  govern- 
ment give  them  to  them  outright? 

Mr.  STERLING.  No,  some  of  the  titles  were  short-term  leases,  and 
some  long-term  leases,  for  99  years,  and  soni3  were  in  fee  simple. 

Mr.  SMELL.  How  did  these  tramps  and  these  fellows  get  the  first 
initial  start  to  buy  these  lai.ds? 

Mr.  STERLING.  It  is  not  quite  to  be  supposed  that  it  was  the  actual 
tramps  that  took  those  places;  it  was  other  workers,  and  possibly  the 
tramps  took  their  jobs,  but  I  am  not  sure  about  that.  But  it  was 
simply  a  general  bill,  and  the  communities  and  those  who  wanted 
that  kind  of  thing  and  could  qualify  had  to  have  a  few  dollars  to 
begin  with  in  order  to  acquire  title  to  the  land. 

Mr.  SXKLL.  Were  not  the  original  land  laws  in  that  country  en- 
tirely different  from  this  country?  Were  not  the  lands,  as  a  whole, 
owned  by  large  estates,  and  they  had  to  be  divided,  and  there  was 
no  way  of  doing  it  unless  the  government  did  it? 

Mr.  STERLING.  That  is  largely  true. 

Mr.  SXELL.  Is  not  that  the  absolute  fact  ? 

Mr.  STERLING.  It  is  largely  true,  but  it  was  also  true 

Mr.  SNELL.    Largely  true?    Is  it  not  a  fact ? 

Mr.  STERLING.  There  was  also  a  very  large  tract  of  wild  land  that 
never  had  been  touched,  that  had  not  been  acquired  by  any  estates. 


84  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

It  is  true  that,  following  the  English  custom,  English  families  were 
acquiring  large  blocks  of  territory  and  holding  it  together  and  using 
it  for  patrimony  for  the  family  later  on. 

Mr.  SNELL.  But  if  you  had  the  money  to  buy  it  you  could  not 
have  gone  in  at  that  time  and  bought  100  acres  of  land,  could  you  ? 

Mr.  STERLING.  You  could  not  do  it. 

Mr.  SNELL.  So  the  laws  are  entirely  different  in  that  country  than 
they  are  here,  under  the  conditions  you  are  speaking  about  ? 

Mr.  STERLING.  The  land  there  was  more  fully  absorbed  by  such 
processes  than  it  is  here. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Was  it  not  absolutely? 

Mr.  STERLING.  The  conditions  here,  though,  are  just  the  same. 
Every  piece  of  land  that  might  be  at  all  available  to  a  returning 
soldier  is  absorbed  and  covered.  No;  it  was  not  absolutely,  but  it 
was  almost  entirely  so. 

Mr.  SNELL,  Mr.  Sterling,  perhaps  you  and  I  think  differently.     As 

1  understood  the  conditions  in  New  Zealand,  the  land  was  largely 
held  in  large  tracts,  and  if  you  or  I  went  over  there  and  had  the 
ir  oney  to  buy  it,  we  could  not  get  title  to  100  acres  of  land,  and 
il  was  necessary  to  have  some  government  action  before  a  small 
landowner  could  ever  get  any  land.     In  this  country,  if  a  man  has 
the  money,  or  had  $5,000,  he  could  buy  5  acres,  10  acres,  100  acres. 
It  is  all  divided  up  into  small  holdings"  now,  but  those  were  the  land 
conditions  existing  in  New  Zealand  in  1893. 

Mr.  STERLING.  Your  statement  is  mainly  true,  but  in  the  extreme 
way  in  which  you  put  it  it  is  not  true. 

Mr.  SNELL.  In  just  what  way  is  it  not  true?  I  would  like  to  get 
information,  if  I  am  wrong. 

Mr.  STERLING.  There  was  an  enormous  number  of  these  large 
estates.  There  was  also  considerable  land  to  be  bought  in  small  com- 
munities at  high  prices.  Now,  as  I  was  proceeding  to  state,  Mr. 
Chairman,  the  government,  through  the  right  of  eminent  domain, 
took  some  of  the  estates.  Some  of  them  were  purchased  under  ordi- 
nary negotiations.  The  first  of  them  that  was  taken  were  called  the 
escheated  estate  and  was  not  taken  under  this  particular  clause  or 
this  particular  method,  but  it  consisted  of  about  seventy  or  eighty 
thousand  acres  of  land,  and  was  operated  by  seventy  or  eighty 
servants,  and  had  about  seventy  or  eighty  thousand  head  of  cattle 
and  sheep.  The  government  bought  it  for  a  million  and  a  quarter 
and  divided  it,  and  three  years  afterwards  there  was  a  population 
of  1.500  on  the  place,  with  churches  and  schools  and  stores  and  the 
usual  amenities  of  life  in  a  small  community. 

Carrying  out  that  policy,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  20  years,  with  a 
country  in  the  condition  in  which  I  have  cited,  in  1911,  when  the 
census  was  taken  as  they  do  there,  they  took  a  census  of  the  un- 
employed, and  the  exact  figure,  as  it  lies  in  my  mind,  of  all  classes 
of  unemployed  in  1911  was  1.97  per  cent  of  the  workers,  less  than 

2  per  cent.     In  Massachusetts,  where  I  was  living  at  the  time,  Mr. 
Chairman,  the  percentage  of  employment  appeared  to  be  10.4  per 
cent.     When  New  Zealand  had  practically  no  unemployment  this 
country  had  between  three  and  four  million  of  workers  able  to  work 
and  willing  to  work,  eager  to  work,  and  needing  to  work,  that 
could  not  find  a  job. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  85 

Mr.  SNELL.  Let  me  ask  you  a  question  right  here.  Do  you  claim 
that  all  the  people  that  are  unemployed,  classed  as  unemployed 
throughout  this  country,  as  the  unemployed  element,  are  eager,  will- 
ing, and  want  to  work? 

Mr.  STERLING.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  condition  of  unemployment  is 
the  most  demoralizing  condition  to  the  workers  that  we  have  in  our 
civilization,  not  excepting  even,  I  think,  the  drinking.  It  demoralizes 
them  and  makes  them  subservient  to  the  habit  of  going  without  work, 
and  soon  grows  into  a  reluctance  to  go  to  work,  and  that  reluctance 
grows  into  a  distaste  for  work.  And  this  manner  of  unemployment, 
Mr.  Chairman,  out  of  some  of  the  finest  workmen  that  America  has 
ever  produced,  has  bred  tramps  that  have  infested  the  highways  and 
railways.  That  is  one  of  the  indictments  against  unemployment,  and 
that,  I  think,  Mr.  Congressman,  should  answer  your  question,  should 
it  not  ? 

Mr.  SNELL.  Well,  partly,  but,  of  course,  a  large  amount  of  the  un- 
employment in  this  country  has  been  caused  by  the  people  not  want- 
ing work.  I  know  that  in  various  small  villages,  and  in  the  village 
that  I  live  in,  there  is  always  15,  20,  or  30  men  standing  on  the  street 
corner  that  you  could  not  hire  to  work  for  more  than  one  or  two 
days  in  a  week  to  save  your  life. 

Mr.  STERLING.  That  statement,  again,  is  so  extreme  that  it  is  not 
accurate. 

Mr.  SNELL.  That  applies  to  every  small  village  in  the  country,  and 
they  are  all  listed  as  unemployed,  and  when  you  take  that  statement 
of  10  per  cent  and  apply  it  to  the  whole  country,  that  is  a  fairly  ex- 
treme statement,  I  think. 

Mr.  STERLING.  The  statement  that  unemployment  is  caused  to  any 
great  extent  by  people  who  will  not  work  is  an  extreme  statement. 

Mr.  SNELL.  I  would  not  say  to  a  great  extent,  but  to  a  considerable 
extent  I  claim  it  is  so. 

Mr.  STERLING.  During  the  war,  Mr.  Chairman,  when  opportunities 
for  work  were  very  common  in  this  country,  in  the  State  of  Massa- 
chusetts the  percentage  of  unemployment  dropped  to  1,  1.1,  and  3. 
Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  those  are  very  significant  figures.  It  means  that 
in  Massachusetts  it  was  almost  impossible  to  find  a  man  who  was  not 
at  work. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  was  during  the  war? 

Mr.  STERLING.  That  was  during  the  war,  when  the  opportunities 
for  work  were  so  good,  and  it  contradicts  the  Congressman's  state- 
ment there. 

Mr.  SNELL.  We  had  a  special  law  at  that  time  that  a  man  must 
work  or  fight,  so  a  lot  of  these  fellows  went  to  work 

Mr.  STERLING.  There  was  some  thought  of  passing  a  law,  Mr. 
Chairman,  at  the  behest  of  employers  who  desired  to  underpay  men 
and  put  other  conditions  on  them  which  they  did  not  wish  to'  submit 
to,  and  if  they  refused  to  work,  then  the  employers  could  notify  the 
military  and  send  them  into  the  Army.  That  measure  did  not  go 
through.  Mr.  Congressman ;  so  when  you  state  that  we  had  a  law 

Mr.  SNELL.  Did  they  not  have  a  society  for  general  employment  in 
this  country  ? 

Mr.  STERLING.  We  had  a  law  of  that  kind,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  SNELL.  I  admit  that  statement  is  correct,  but  it  was  advertised 
all  over  the  country  that  you  must  work  or  fight. 


86  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  VAILE.  That  was  put  into  effect  in  a  great  many  communities 
by  State  law. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Was  not  this  the  real,  true  situation,  as  resulted  in  my 
State  ?%  For  many  years,  in  1896  and  1897,  and  many  years  along 
there,  when  the  roads  were  infested  with  tramps,  that  during  the  war 
every  community  had  a  commission  or  board,  a  voluntary  board,  and 
no  man  could  stay  in  the  town  two  days  but  what  they  found  a  job 
for  him,  and  if  he  did  not  take  the  job  he  had  to  get  out.  Is  not  that 
the  true  situation? 

Mr.  STERLING.  It  is  absolutely  the  fact  that  they  had  these  things. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Not  only  these  things,  but  did  it  not  put  these  men  to 
work,  and  is  it  not  a  fact  that  where  before  15  or  20  would  be  around  a 
little  town  of  1,500  inhabitants,  that  during  the  war  you  did  not  find 
a  man  that  was  not  at  work?  From  the  time  he  landed  in  the  town 
the  people  were  after  him  and  found  a  job  for  him,  and  if  he  did 
not  go  to  work  he  had  to  go  to  some  other  place  ? 

Mr.  STERLING.  They  did  that,  and  we  know  that  in  1896  and  1897, 
along  there,  during  those  years  when  there  were  4,000,000  of 
them — that  is  to  say,  during  the  war  there  were  opportunities  of 
work,  and  if  the  man  himself  would  not  go  to  work  the  community 
would  crowd  him  to  go  to  work,  and  they  all  went  to  work  ? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Mr.  Sterling,  what  are  the  conditions  now? 

Mr.  STERLING.  The  conditions  now  are  that  in  the  country  dis- 
tricts there  are  not  enough  men  to  fill  the  jobs  on  the  farms;  is  that 
true  ? 

Mr.  SNELL.  Absolutely,  so  far  as  I  am  able  to  find  out. 

Mr.  STERLING.  In  some  city  districts  there  are  more  workers  than 
there  are  jobs,  to  the  extent  that  the  figures  I  gave  to  the  Congress- 
man confirm. 

Mr.  SNELL.  In  about  30  cities  they  claim  there  is  a  slight  excess  of 
labor. 

Mr.  STERLING.  In  about  30  cities  there  were  300,000  men  out  of 
work. 

Mr.  SNELL.  How  does  that  compare  with  the  average  year,  the 
number  of  cities  having  an  excess  of  labor  ? 

Mr.  STERLING.  I  have  the  unemployment  statement,  Mr.  Chairman, 
here,  since  March  31,  1909,  and  rather  than  read  all  those  figures  in 
percentages,  for  the  information  of  the  committee,  if  you  desire  I 
will  leave  the  pamphlet  with  you. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  On  what  page  is  that  data? 

Mr.  STERLING.  It  is  on  page  10. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Without  objection,  it  may  be  printed  in  the  record. 

Mr.  STERLING.  The  following  comparative  statement  shows  the 
number  at  the  close  of  each  quarter  since  1908. 

(The  matter  referred  to  is  as  follows:) 

[Employment — Dec.  31,  1918  ;  p.  10.] 
III.  UNEMPLOYMENT  OF  ORGANIZED  WAGE  EARNERS. 

The  following  comparative  statement  shows  the  number  and  membership 
of  the  organizations  reporting  at  the  close  of  each  quarter  since  1!X)S.  also  the. 
number  of  members  unemployed  and  the  corresponding  percentages.  For  the 
purpose  of  emphasizing  the  comparisons  the  data  for  the  close  of  the  fourth 
nnarter  in  each  year  are  printed  in  full-face  tj'pe. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  87 

TABLE  3. — Unemployment  of  organized  wage  earners. 


Quarters  ending  — 

Number  reporting. 

Unemployed,  all  causes. 

Unemployed  owing  to 
lack  or  work  or  ma- 
terial. 

Unions. 

Member- 
ship. 

Members. 

Percent- 
ages. 

Members. 

Percent- 
ages. 

Mar  31  1909 

777 
780 
797 
830 

837 
841 
845 
862 

889 
897 
975 
905 

942 
974 
972 
994 

1,022 
1,037 
1,059 
1,081 

1,082 
1,095 
1,010 
1,024 

1,076 
1,092 
1,052 
1,026 

1.029 
1,017 
1,021 
1,039 

1,042 
979 
1,077 
1,093 

1,226 
1,093 
1,133 
1,112 

105,059 
105,944 
113,464 
107,  689 

117,082 
121,849 
118,781 
122,621 

122,002 
135,202 
133,540 
125,484 

161,825 
134,  940 
14o,673 
174,359 

170,  970 
172,343 

177,267 
178,  182 

173,327 
183,202 
166,816 
165,  762 

171,997 
162,315 
175,754 
168,  122 

178,434 
173,  179 
180,557 
171,877 

194,211 
165,529 
195,309 
201,404 

228,867 
212,181 
227,286 
221,005 

11,997 
6,736 
5,451 
10,084 

8,262 
8,518 
6,624 
12,517 

12,738 

8,927 
7,527 
12,167 

22,738 
7,088 
6,952 
15,914 

19,  329 
11,116 
12,010 
18,574 

22,347 
18,122 
18,302 
30,258 

.  28,486 
17,262 
12,328 
14,389 

15,484 
7,358 
7,046 
10,313 

14,271 
13,846 
10,866 
14,900 

13,843 
6,324 
13,637 
20,981 

11.4 
6.4 

4.8 
9.4 

7.1 
7.0 
5.6 
10.2 

10.4 
6.6 
5.6 
.    9.7 

'14.1 
5.3 
4.7 
9.1 

11.3 
6.4 
6.8 
10.4 

12.9 
9.9 
11.0 
18.3 

16.6 
10.6 
7.0 
8.6 

8.6 
4.2 
3.9 
6.0 

7.3 
8.4 
5.6 
7.4 

6.0 
3.0 
'6.0 
9.5 

9,980 
4,913 
3,873 
5,248 

6,186 
6,570 
4,687 
8,938 

9,120 
5,669 
4,904 
7,568 

8,185 
4,540 
4,407 
11,164 

12,493 
7,473 
7,537 
13,069 

15,917 
12,576 
14,140 
24,629 

21,951 
12,241 
6,325 
6,709 

7,010 
2,323 
3,358 
4,708 

7,193 

5,849 
5237 
7,131 

6,970 
2,094 
2,486 
11,629 

9.5 
4.6 
3.4 
4.9 

5.3 
5.4 
4.0 
7.3 

7.5 
4.2 
3.7 
•       6.0 

5.1 
3.4 
3.0 
6.4 

7.3 
4.3 
4,3 
7.3 

9.2 
6.9 
8.5 
14.9 

12.8 
7.6 
3.6 
4.0 

3.9 
1.3 
1.9 

2.7 

3.7 
3.5 
2.7 
3.5 

3.0 
1.0 
1.1 
5.3 

June  30  1909  

Sept.  30,  1909  
Dec  31  1909 

Mar  31  1910 

June  30.  1910  
Sept  39  1910      .   . 

Dec  31  1910 

Mar.31,1911  

June  30  1911 

Sept  30  1911 

Dec  30  1911  l  

Mar  30  1912  l     ...  . 

June  29  1912  l 

Sept  30  1912 

Dec  31  1912     

Mar  31  1913 

June  30  1913 

Sept.  30.  1913  
Dec  31  1913 

Mar  31  1914 

June  30  1914  

Scpi   :j')  1914      .... 

Dec  31  1914 

Mar  31  1915  

June  30  1915     

Sept  3'J  1915 

Dec  31  1915 

Mar  31  1916     

June  30  1916 

Sept   :S'»  1916 

Dee.  so'wie1  

Mar  31  1917 

Sept.  29,  19171  

Dec.31,1917  

Mar  30  1918  ' 

June  29  191S  ' 

Sept.  30  1918  

Dec.31,1918  

i  As  the  last  day  of  this  quarter  fell  on  Sunday,  the  previous  day  was  taken  as  the  date  for  whijh  infor- 
mation was  requested. 

1  The  percentage  (14.1)  was  unusually  high  because  the  number  reported  as  unemployed  included  over 
9,000  organized  textile  workers  in  Lowell  who  were  involved  in  a  strike  pending  on  Mar.  30,  1912. 

»  Exclusive  of  members  who  were  ill  with  influenza,  the  percentage  unemployed  for  all  causes  would 
have  been  less  than  3. 

According  to  returns  received  from  1,112  labor  organizations  in  Massa- 
chusetts at  the  close  of  December,  1918.  representing  221.005  members,  9.5 
per  cent  of  the  total  membership  were  unemployed  for  all  causes,  as  compared 
with  G.O  per  cent  at  the  close  of  September,  1918,  and  with  7.4  per  cent  at  the 
close  of  December.  1917.  A  large  number  of  those  who  were  reported  as  un- 
employed at  the  close  of  the  quarter  were  absent  from  work  because  of 
Influenza,  but  the  number  absent  for  this  cause  was  far  less  than  at  the  close 
of  September  when  the  epidemic  was  at  its  height  in  Massachusetts. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Might  I  just  ask  a  question  right  there?  You  have 
made  the  statement  to  the  committee,  and  you  have  given  this  matter 
a,  lot  of  thought,  and  it  will  be  of  value  to'  the  committee,  that  in  the 
country  districts  all  over  the  Nation  there  is  a  scarcity  of  labor  and 


88  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

in  the  cities  there  is  a  surplus.  Now,  as  the  conditions  exist  now, 
what  is  your  remedy  for  getting  those  fellows  out  of  the  city  on  to 
the  farms,  and  in  the  country? 

Mr.  STERLING.  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is  substantially  the  question 
which  the  Congressman  asked  of  the  previous  speaker.  It  is  to-day 
an  exceedingly  large  problem  in  civilization.  The  population  is 
tending  toward  the  cities  all  over  the  world,  and  the  cities  are  be- 
coming congested  all  over  the  world,  and  the  country  districts  are 
becoming  more  or  less  depopulated  all  over  the  world. 

Mr.  Chairman,  my  purpose  in  coming  here  was  to  urge  that  you 
pass  this  bill  so  as  to  give  every  soldier  the  opportunity,  as  a  recogni- 
tion of  his  service,  and  incidentally  I  desire  to  say  that  it  would  be  of 
some  value  to  the  community  as  a  whole,  it  would  be  of  some  value, 
though  not  a  great  deal,  in'  solving  this  problem  which  the  gentle- 
man propounded. 

I  have  a  theory,  Mr.  Congressman,  as  to  the  ultimate  solution,  the 
ultimate  answer  to  the  question  which  you  have  put,  but  such  a 
theory  involves  sharp  points  and  corners  and  angles,  and  would 
raise  a  lot  of  discussion  on  the  floor  the  same  as  I  have  been  in  this 
morning  on  disputed  points,  and  I  do  not  want  to  get  away  from 
the  better  thing  and  the  urgency  and  the  desire  that  I  have  that  you 
pass  the  bill  in  order  to  give  the  soldier  and  sailor  this  opportunity, 
utterly  regardless  of  whether  it  is  going  to  be  of  benefit  to  anybody 
else  or  not.  It  is  true  at  the  same  time  that  they  will  not  all  take 
advantage  of  it,  but  they  will  all  have  the  opportunity  if  you  pass 
the  bill,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  maybe  in  later  years  many  who  would 
perhaps  reject  with  some  contempt  the  proposition  to-day,  perhaps 
in  many  years  to  come,  when  harder  times  come  to  them,  if  they  do 
come,  they  will  be  glad  then  to  take  the  opportunity. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Mr.  Sterling,  can  you  say  that  you  represent  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  and  that  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor,  from  one  end  of  this  country  to  the  other,  is  in  favor  of  this 
measure  ? 

Mr.  STERLING.  Mr.  Chairman,  there  is  a  question  that  I  was  asked 
day  before  yesterday  before  a  committee.  I  was  there  officially,  rep- 
'  resenting  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  In  its  annual  conven- 
tion and  in  many  other  meetings  it  had  taken  specific  action  and  had 
resolved  in  favor  of  the  proposition,  in  favor  of  our  daylight  saving. 
Yet  there  were  Congressmen  there  present  who  had  from  their  dis- 
tricts certain  resolutions  passed  by  certain  labor  organizations  in 
their  districts.  Now,  our  organization  consists  of  3,500,000  men. 
It  is  entirely  a  voluntary  organization,  the  most  democratic  organi- 
zation on  the  face  of  the  earth.  They  meet  in  official  session,  and 
they  adopt  these  resolutions,  perhaps  one  resolution  or  another  reso- 
lution on  the  matter,  and  sometimes  they  express  the  absolutely  unan- 
imous opinion  of  practically  every  member  in  the  organization,  and 
sometimes,  as  on  the  daylight-saving  proposition  and  ,on  women  suf- 
frage, they  express  the  majority  feeling,  where  there  is  a  vast  differ- 
ence of  opinion,  both  individual  and  in  the  organization. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  What  do  you  want  this  committee  to  understand,  that 
you  do  represent  the  organization,  or  that  you  do  not ;  that  you  repre-, 
sent  the  Federation  or  what? 

Mr.  STERLING.  I  represent  the  organization,  Mr.  Chairman,  and 
this  is  one  of  the  questions  on  which.  <-'0  far  as  wo  know,  ilioro  is  a1)- 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  89 

solutely  no  division  of  opinion  whatsoever.  So  far  as  we  can  state 
at  this  moment,  it  has  been  properly  and  officially  adopted,  and  so  far 
as  we  can  tell  or  we  have  had  any  notice  of,  from  one  end  of  the 
country  to  the  other  the  three  and  a  half  million  members  are  unani- 
mously in  favor  of  it.  That  is  the  strongest  indorsement  I  can  give 
you  from  the  American  Federation  of  Labor. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  came  to  win  the  good  will  of  the  committee  in 
behalf  of  the  measure.  I  want  to  make  as  pleasing  and  strong  an  im- 
pression as  I  can  in  behalf  of  that  particular  measure.  You  will  bear 
me  out  when  I  state  that  I  used  my  utmost  endeavor  to  avoid  con- 
troverted points,  especially  when  they  did  not  bear  on  this  particular 
measure.  I  tried  to  present  the  facts  in  regard  to  unemployment,  in 
so  far  as  it  may  be  of  interest  in  this  measure.  I  have  given  the 
official  declaration  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  I  have  in- 
dicated to  you  that  another  country  has  tried  this  out  thoroughly 
since  1893  and  has  made  an  enormous  success  of  it,  Mr.  Chairman, 
keeping  unemployment  down  to  the  lowest  possible  limit. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Has  your  organization  taken  any  steps  to  ascertain  the 
probable  proportion  of  the  soldiers  who  would  want  to  take  advan- 
tage of  the  law  ? 

Mr.  STERLING.  We  have  not,  Mr.  Chairman.  We  felt  that  it  was 
the  proper  thing  to  do  to  offer  the  opportunity  to  all.  We  felt  that 
they  were  entitled  to  it  for  their  service.  You  know  probably,  Mr. 
Chairman,  or  if  you  do  not  know,  you  had  better  ask  Mr.  Lane  to 
give  you  the  facts,  as  to  how  much  better  opportunities  Canada,  New 
Zealand,  Australia,  and  England  are  giving  to  their  returning 
soldiers. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  have  that  in  the  record. 

Mr.  STERLING.  I  thought  possibly  you  would  have,  so  I  did  not 
allude  to  it  before. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  The  question  has  been  raised  here  as  to  the  extent 
to  which  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  has  indorsed  this  propo- 
sition. 

Mr.  STERLING.  I  have  read  you  the  indorsement. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  That  is  from  the  legislative  program  of  reconstruc- 
tion adopted  by  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  Was  that  in- 
dorsed by  the  general  convention,  or  by  different  resolutions? 

Mr.  STERLING.  This  proposition,  Mr.  (Chairman,  as  perhaps  you  will 
remember  and  as  your  committee  knows,  was  brought  in  first  in  1915 
and  applied  to  the  soldiers  when  they  returned,  by  the  Department 
of  Labor,  and  the  suggestion  in  the  bill  at  that  time  was  that  that 
project  be  handled  by  three  Secretaries — of  the  Department  of  Labor, 
the  Department  of  the  Interior,  and  the  Department  of  Agriculture. 
Within  the  past  year  Secretary  Lane,  with  his  exuberant  vigor,  has 
assumed  it  all  to  his  department,  and  as  it  came  from  the  Labor  De- 
partment originally  it  was  a  labor  proposition,  a  labor  suggestion, 
indorsed  by  the  convention  and  urged  for  passage,  before  Mr.  Lane 
and  his  bill  were  heard  of. 

I  came  here  to  urge  the  passage  of  Mr.  Lane's  bill,  because  we  de- 
sire the  thing,  no  matter  who  gets  it  through,  or  no  matter  who  han- 
dles it  after  it  is  through.  So  I  came  to  this  committee  to  urge  the 
passage  of  this  present  bill. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Have  they  taken  action  other  than  the  paragraph  read 
from  the  report? 


90  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  STERLING.  I  was  trying  to  answer  almost  that  identical  ques- 
tion to  the  gentleman.  I  said  to  the  gentleman  that  this  proposition 
as  it  is  embodied  in  Mr.  Lane's  bill,  with  small  variations,  was  em- 
bodied in  a  bill  that  was  brought  in  at  the  suggestion  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Labor  in  1915,  and  at  that  time  it  was  officially  indorsed  by 
the  convention  itself. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  A  concrete  bill,  was  it,  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  STERLING.  A  concrete  bill. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Tracking  this  scheme  verly  closely? 

Mr.  STERLING.  With  this  identical  proposition  worked  out,  with 
small  differences  in  detail  only. 

Mr.  TILLMAN.  We  had  not  gotten  in  the  war  until  1917. 

Mr.  STERLING.  Nevertheless  that  problem  was  brought  in  in  that 
way.  If  the  committee  desires,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  can  get  you  the 
number  of  the  bill  later  on.  It  has  passed  out  of  my  mind  at  the 
present  time. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Was  a  written  resolution  passed  at  that  time  regarding 
the  plan  similar  to  this  one  ? 

Mr.  STERLING.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Are  those  written  resolutions  available? 

Mr.  STERLING.  Yes,  sir;  I  have  no  c'ciibt  they  are  available. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Would  you  mind  getting  them  and  supplying  them 
for  the  record  as  a  part  of  your  statement,  so  we  will  see  just  what 
action  was  taken  ? 

Mr.  STERLING.  Governing  that  bill,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  bill  at  that  time  was  general  in  its  character  and 
did  not  apply  to  returning  soldiers  exclusively,  because  we  had  not 
at  that  time  entered  the  war  and  did  not  have  any  returning  soldier*. 

Mr.  STERLING.  I  think  the  gentleman  is  correct. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Then,  other  than  the  paragraph  read,  other  than  the 
recommendation  in  behalf  of  this  general  bill  in  1915.  you  have  taken 
no  action  that  has  been  reduced  to  writing  in  a  formal  resolution? 

Mr.  STERLING.  Not  so  far  as  I  know.  It  could  not  very  well  come 
up  at  the  last  year's  convention  in  June. 

Mr.  FERRIS:  Was  any  action  taken  on  the  bill  introduced  by  Mr. 
Taylor  in  the  last  session  of  Congress,  covering  Secretary  Lane's  plan  ? 

Mr.  STERLING.  I  was  just  saying  I  did  not  think  it  was  possible  to 
do  so. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  think  I  have  letters  on  that,  which  I  have  turned 
over  to  my  successor,  I  think,  from  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  indorsing  that  bill — I  mean,  indorsing  the  policy.  I  was 
chairman  of  that  committee.  I  think  there  is  a  world  of  that  mate- 
rial there  indorsing  this  measure,  by  not  only  the  Federation  itself, 
but  by  a  great  many  subordinate  labor  organizations. 

Mr.  STERLING.  There  is  an  ocean  of  it.  I  understood  his  question 
to  refer  categorically  to  just  what  the  convention  itself  had  done. 
Am  I  right? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  That  is  what  I  want  to  get  at. 

Mr.  STERLING.  I  do  not  think  the  convention  last  year  did  anything 
at  all  about  it,  because  in  this  present  form  it  had  just  been  intro- 
duced and  had  not  been  discussed,  and  did  not  come  to  their  knowl- 
edge. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  91 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  that  the  bill  that  represents  the  view  of  the 
Department  of  Labor,  known  as  the  Grosser  bill? 

Mr.  STERLING.  That  is  one  of  them,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  the  bill  representing  the  ideas  of  the  De- 
partment of  Labor? 

Mr.  STERLING.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  That  was  not  confined  to  soldiers,  at  all. 

Mr.  STERLING.  Last  year  Clyde  Kelly  brought  in  a  bill  which  was 
supposed  to  represent  the  ideas  of  the  Department  of  Labor  at  that 
time,  and  I  was  instructed  to  appear  in  favor  of  that  bill,  which  I 
did. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Neither  of  those  bills  was  confined  to  soldiers  at  that 
time? 

Mr.  STERLING.  Xo ;  they  were  not. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Is  it  your  opinion,  now,  Mr.  Sterling,  in  the  face  of  the 
large  number  of  soldiers  returning,  that  this  bill  should  be  a  bill  for 
soldiers,  or  a  general  bill? 

Mr.  STERLING.  That  is  another  embarrassing  question.  Mr.  Chair- 
man, in  the  ultimate,  in  the  finality,  this  opportunity  should  apply 
to  all  the  workers  in  the  land  at  this  moment.  I  am  urging  your 
committee  to  pass  a  bill  through,  having  it  apply  only  to  returning 
soldiers.  AVhat  the  future  will  develop  on  that,  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
have  no  idea  whatsoever,  and  I  would  rather  not  complicate  it  with 
the  advocacy  of  this  bill  at  this  time. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  But  would  not  the  soldiers,  by  reason  of  their  recent 
services,  and  such  distinguished  services,  be  entitled  to  a  preference 
at  this  time  ? 

Mr.  STERLING.  More  than  a  preference,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Are  we  not  proceeding  along  the  right  lines  to  have 
this  bill  confined  at  this  time  to  the  soldiers  and  sailors  ? 

Mr.  STERLING.  I  would  not  want  to  say  it  quite  so  strongly  as  that. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  How  would  you  put  it  ? 

Mr.  STERLING.  I  would  put  it  as  I  did  before,  that  I  am  here  urg- 
ing the  passage  of  this  bill,  knowing  that  it  applies  only  to  the  sol- 
diers, and  I  am  trying  to  avoid  any  discussion  as  to  whether  in  the 
future  it  should  be  broadened  out  to  apply  to  all  workers. 

Mr.  MATS.  You  would  not  tie  up  the  land  indefinitely  if  there 
were  not  soldiers  enough  to  take  it  all  ? 

Mr.  STERLING.  I  do  not  quite  see  the  bearing  of  your  question. 

Mr.  MAYS.  If  you  had  the  project  and  not  enough  soldiers  applied 
for  the  land,  would  you  then  open  it  to  other  people? 

Mr.  STERLING.  I  should  then  come  back  to  Congress  and  ask  for 
further  legislation,  remembering  this,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  its  appli- 
cation as  to  all  workers  has  been  already  construed  by  the  various 
courts  in  the  country,  not  only  to  State  constitutions,  but  to  the  Fed- 
eral Constitution. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  said  a  moment  ago  that  your  organization  had 
made  no  effort  to  ascertain  or  take  any  sounding  of  opinion  of  the 
soldiers  as  to  what  percentage  would  take  advantage  of  this? 

Mr.  STERLING.  No. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Have  you  any  opinion  on  the  subject  at  all? 

Mr.  STERLING.  My  opinion  is  expressed  in  my  remarks,  that  a 
minimum  of  10  per  cent  would  take  advantage  of  it. 


92  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  That  would  be  how  many  soldiers  ? 

Mr.  STERLING.  I  understand  that  in  the  service,  including  sol- 
diers, sailors,  and,  all,  there  were  over  4,000,000,  so  that  you  would 
have  400,000.  Now,  I  say  a  minimum  of  10  per  cent.  Secretary  Lam* 
gave  you  other  figures  the  other  day. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  He  gave  16  per  cent.  Has  your  organization  made 
any  estimate  of  what  they  think  the  Government  ought  to  expend  on 
each  one  of  these  proposed  homesteads? 

Mr.  STERLING.  No. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Did  you  hear  Secretary  Lane's  statement  the  other 
day— about  $6,000  ? 

Mr.  STERLING.  $6,000  on  each  farm  ? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  That  was  Secretary  Lane's  statement  in  regard  to  the 
amount  that  would  be  necessary  to  buy  it  and  make  it  habitable. 

Mr.  STERLING.  That  sounds  to  me  pretty  high;  but  it  is  interesting 
to  know  that  in  Massachusetts — and  I  do  not  know  about  other 
States — but  in  Massachusetts  the  average  value  of  each  farm  is  al- 
most exactly  $6,000.  Those  are  the  official  figures. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Does  that  include  the  live  stock  and  improvements, 
too? 

Mr.  STERLING.  That  is  simply  the  farm  as  it  stood.  I  judge  it 
included  the  live  stock  also.  I  was  astonished  to  learn  that  fact, 
and  Avent  over  the  figures,  and  went  to  the  tax  commissioner's  office 
and  also  to  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture,  and  I  was  astonished  to  find 
that  the  value  of  each  farm  was  $6,000.  I  would  have  thought  about 
$3,500  or  $4,500. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  land-settlement  act  of 
Australia  and  its  workings? 

Mr.  STERLING.  I  can  not  say  that  I  am  now,  Mr.  Congressman. 
I  made  a  careful  and  exhaustive  study  of  that  question,  but  it  has 
been  about  six  years  ago  since  I  went  over  it,  and  because  New  Zea- 
land was  so  striking  it  stayed  in  my  mind. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  the  same  would  be  true  with  reference  to  the 
California  land  settlement  act — that  you  are  not  familiar  with  its 
provisions  and  workings? 

Mr.  STERLING.  That  was  only  a  few  years  ago,  and  my  only  in- 
formation is  in  listening  to in  regard  to  that  matter. 

That  is  the  only  source  of  information  I  have  in  regard  to  that 
matter.    I  have  tried  to  keep  track  of  it  to  that  extent. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  In  regard  to  the  state  of  mind  of  the  ordinary  soldier 
who  has  been  employed  at  inside  positions  and  has  been  employed 
in  large  cities,  accustomed  to  city  life,  do  you  anticipate  any  dangers 
regarding  the  practicability  of  getting  those  men  out  on  these  farms  *. 

Mr.  STERLING.  I  anticipate  that  a  few  of  them  desire  to  get  out 
of  doors  and  get  out  of  the  shops.  I  know  a  great  number  of  skilled 
mechanics  who  are  getting  high  wages,  who  are  longing,  pining  for 
the  opportunity  to  get  out  of  doors  and  live  out  of  doors  instead  of 
living  in  shops  between  four  walls. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Is  it  your  thought  that  a  large  per  cent  of  men  who 
have  been  engaged  in  that  sort  of  work  and  who  even  have  longing 
to  ffo  on  the  farm  would  actually  make  a  success  of  it? 

Mr.  STERLING.  I  should  expect  that  some  of  them  would  get  sick 
and  tired  after  two  or  three  years,  but  if  that  farm  was  so  established 
and  the  man  got  sick  and  tired  of  it  and  went  back  to  the  city  some- 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  93 

body  else  would  take  his  place,  and  so  the  relief  would  be  just  the 
same  whether  he  stayed  or  did  not  stay. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  It  would  at  least  result  in  the  improvement  of  that 
particular  area;  it  would  increase  the  production  at  least,  would 
it  not? 

Mr.  STERLING.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  It  could  not  result  in  a  total  failure,  even  though  the 
man  who  now  thought  in  his  mind  that  he  would  like  to  get  away 
from  the  crowded  centers  and  go  out  there,  became  homesick,  and 
went  back ;  it  would  not  be  a  total  loss. 

Mr.  STERLING.  That  is  the  idea.  The  comment  of  the  gentleman 
reminds  me  of  another  thing  in  regard  to  New  Zealand  that  I  would 
like  to  have  in  the  record.  In  1911,  when  that  low  unemployment 
percentage  was  made,  they  had  a  commission  to  examine  into  the 
increasing  cost  of  living — if  you  believe  me  they  had  a  commission  to 
examine  into  the  increasing  cost  of  living  when  the  increase  was  only 
8  per  cent,  and  at  that  same  moment  our  increase  was  from  45  to  55 
per  cent,  and  since  that  it  has  gone  up  over  100  per  cent,  and  it  is  a 
further  fact  that  these  people  going  out  to  these  small  places  like 
that  will  keep  down  the  increasing  cost  of  living. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Did  you  hear  Mr.  Atkinson's  statement  here? 

Mr.  STERLING.  I  did  not  hear  it ;  I  read  about  it  in  the  newspapers. 
I  had  a  little  comment  to  make  on  that  subject,  but  I  want  to  keep 
away  from  those  things  if  I  can  ?nd  be  just  as  good  as  I  possibly 
can  before  the  committee.  I  want  the  bill,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is 
the  idea. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  For  the  benefit  of  the  committee  I  want  to  state 
that  the  town  in  which  I  was  born  in  Oregon  had  large  railroad 
shops  when  they  started  to  homestead  that  section  of  the  country, 
and  a  great  number  of  the  homesteads  were  taken  by  the  boiler 
makers,  machinists,  blacksmiths,  and  carpenters,  and  others  working 
there  in  the  shops. 

Mr.  STERLING.  My  belief  is,  speaking  by  and  large,  that  those  who 
will  take  advantage  of  this  will  be  close  to  10  per  cent. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  those  men  made  a  success  on  the 
farm  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  were  successful  farmers,  and  their  sons 
are  to-day. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  want  to  get  that  in  the  record  so  there  will  be  no 
misunderstanding,  that  men  of  this  kind  can  go  on  farms  and  make 
successful  farmers. 

Mr.  STERLING.  I  think  with  the  aid  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  and  the  aid  of  books  and  experience  they  will  some- 
times make  more  successful  farmers  than  some  one  who  has  been 
generations  on  the  soil,  who  has  only  his  experience. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  thank  you  very  much  for  your  statement. 

Mr.  STERLING.  I  beg  leave  to  thank  the  committee  for  their  kind 
attention  and  courtesy,  and  I  ask  you  for  the  bill. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  CHARLES  B.  TIMBERLAKE.  A  REPRESENTA- 
TIVE IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  COLORADO. 

Mr.  TIMBERLAKE.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
I  regret  very  much  that  it  has  not  been  possible  for  me  to  be  in 


94  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

attendance  upon  the  hearings  so  that  I  might  have  heard  the  argu- 
ments that  have  been  made. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  a  mutual  regret  with  all  the  members  of 
the  committee  and  yourself. 

Mr.  TIMBERLAKE.  I  did  not  think  it  would  be  necessary  for  me  to 
appear  before  this  committee  to  present  views,  as  I  understood  them 
to  be,  from  Colorado  with  reference  to  this  measure.  I  felt  that  we 
were  ably  represented  by  two  members  on  this  committee,  Mr.  Vaile, 
representing  the  Denver  district,  and  l^r.  Taylor,  one  of  the  other 
districts  of  Colorado,  but  I  was  very  glad  of  the  invitation  to  appear 
before  you  and  simply  voice  my  sentiment  with  reference  to  the 
general  provisions  of  this  bill.  I  have  been  so  very  busy  that  I  have 
not  had  time  to  take  up  the  bill  and  analyze  all  its  provisions,  but  I 
want  to  say  that,  in  the  general  terms,  I  am  in  hearty  sympathy  with 
the  general  purposes  of  the  bill. 

It  has  been  my  privilege  to  hear  on  two  occasions  this  matter 
very  fully  discussed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  Mr.  Lane. 
I  was  deeply  impressed  by  what  he  said  of  the  necessity  for  some- 
thing of  thi's  kind.  I  have  long  thought  that  the  General  Govern- 
ment, even  before  it  was  thought  to  be  necessary  to  be  taken  up  on 
account  of  furnishing  homes  to  our  returning  soldiers,  should  take 
up  some  plan  of  this  kind  for  the  development  of  undeveloped 
portions  of  this  country,  as  evidenced  in  certain  States,  from  lands 
that  could  be  reclaimed  and  made  valuable  by  a  system  of  drainage, 
other  lands  that  could  be  reclaimed — among  the  best  lands  that  we 
have  in  this  country — by  the  induction  of  water  drains.  I  have 
not  had  personal  acquaintance  with  reference  to  the  conditions  that 
exist  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  country,  in  the  stump  lands  that 
have  been  cut  over  and  the  same  kind  of  lands  in  the  South,  but  I 
have  always  felt  that  the  Government  would  be  absolutely  justified 
in  loaning  money  to  have  these  lands  developed,  which  would  come 
back  to  it  finally  in  the  full  payment  of  the  principal  and  the 
interest  and  the  additional  benefit  of  having  brought  under  cultiva- 
tion and  improvement  widely  extended  areas  of  our  country  that 
to-day  are  undeveloped. 

I  do  not  presume  that  this  is  any  time  that  you  want  to  consider 
special  projects.  I  wrant  to  ask  if  the  committee  has  information 
as  to  how  many  States  have  made  appropriations  through  their 
legislatures,  to  supplement  any  action  the  Federal  Government  has 
taken?  Do  you  know,  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  are  having  that  prepared  for  the  benefit  of 
the  committee,  a  statement  of  that, 

Mr.  TIMBERLAKE.  I  think  Colorado  appropriated  $100,000,  or  more 
than  that. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  think  it  is  a  sliding  amount  and  that  our  legisla- 
ture gave  quite  a  large  discretion  to  the  governor  or  some  com- 
mission to  cooperate  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in 
whatever  we  did  or  wanted  to  do. 

Mr.  VAILE.  I  do  not  know  the  amount. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  in  Secretary  Lane's  report. 

Mr.  TIMBERLAKE.  I  understood  there  had  been  an  appropriation 
made  by  a  great  many  of  the  States,  and  recently  in  Colorado  I 
took  the  time  to  discuss  this  question  with  a  great  many  people. 
I  discussed  it  with  the  chambers  of  commerce  and  the  boards  of 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  95 

trade  in  seven  or  eight  different  cities  there  and  I  found  the  general 
sentiment  very  much  in  favor  of  some  method  of  this  kind  to  provide 
homes  for  our  returning  soldiers. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Mr.  Timberlake,  is  there  any  sentiment  in  Colorado 
among  the  farmers  that  would  be  hostile  to  this  legislation? 

Mr.  TIMBERLAKE.  I  did  not  find  any. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  You  are  a  farmer  yourself,  Mr.  Timberlake.  are  you 
not.  or  you  are  partly  employed  in  farming? 

Mr.  TIMBERLAKE.  All  of  my  interests  in  life  are  in  agriculture. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Timberlake.  there  was  some  reference  made 
the  other  day  to  the  failure  of  irrigation  in  Colorado,  and  while 
this  is  not  an  irrigation  bill,  strictly  speaking,  you  have  had  ex- 
perience in  irrigation  in  Colorado  and  know  something  about  the 
success  or  failure  of  irrigation  in  that  State.  Can  you  briefly  refer 
to  that ? 

Mr.  TIMBERLAKE.  "Well,  irrigation  in  Colorado  is  a  decided  success. 
Simv  I  have  been  residing  there,  which  has  been  since  1885.  I  have 
seen  it  irrigated  and  reduced  to  a  very  successful  agricultural  State. 
I  could  best  illustrate  that  possibly  by  recounting  one  project.  In 
company  with  20  others  in  my  home  town  of  Sterling,  realizing 
that  we  had  a  stretch  of  country  there  which  wras  table-land,  as  rich 
as  any  lands  in  any  country,  but  which  were  uncertain  for  agriculture 
without  water,  we  determined  to  bring  water  to  them.  There  was  no 
way  to  do  this  except  by  a  ditch,  taking  the  water  from  the  South 
Platte  ditch,  65  miles  above,  where  these  lands  were  located,  and 
that,  water  had  to  be  brought  through  a  ditch  65  miles  long,  as  \ 
said,  running  almost  entirely  through- the  sand  hill  country. 

These  men  made  their  survey.  The  General  Government,  as  possi- 
bty  some  of  you  gentlemen  know,  had  sent  their  engineers  into  that 
territory  to  determine  the  feasibility  of  a  Federal  reclamation  proj- 
ect. They  spent  a  good  deal  of  money  and  they  spent  a  year's  time 
with  their  engineers  in  surveying.  They  reported  not  feasible  on 
account  of  the  fact  that  this  ditch  was  so  long  and  had  to  be  taken 
through  the  sand  hill  territory,  and  recommended  against  it,  and 
the  Government  turned  the  project  down.  We  had  confidence  that 
it  was  entirely  feasible  and  were  willing  to  spend  our  money  in  mak- 
ing surveys  and  getting  the  project  started  and  it  was  taken  up  as  a 
State  proposition,  plans  formulated,  and  steps  taken  for  its  develop- 
ment. We  sold  -2-±  bonds  and  built  our  reservoir  and  ditch.  To-day 
it  is  one  of  the  brightest  spots  in  Colorado.  There  are  80,000  acres 
that  when  brought  under  irrigation  will  be  lands  that  will  bring 
from  $150  to  $350  per  acre.  To-day,  as  for  six  years,  there  are  45,000 
acres  under  irrigation,  fully  irrigated,  producing  the  finest  crops  you 
ever  >a\v  alfalfa  and  of  grains  and  within  four  years  more  all  of 
this  80,000  acres  will  have  been  reclaimed.  The  project  is  an  entire 
success. 

Mr.  YAILE.  In  reference  to  the  failure  of  irrigation  in  Colorado, 
in  Mr.  Taylor's  district,  I  think  as  he  is  here  at  the  present  time, 
possibly  he  can  later  tell  us  about  abandoned  farms  there. 
Mr.  TAYLOR.  Who  said  anything  about  abandoned  farms? 
Mr.  VAILE.  Mr.  Atkeson.    I  tried  to  defend  that  valley. 
Mr.  TIMBERLAKE.   I  know  you  are  busy  with  this  thing  and  have 
a  great  many  here  you  want  to  hear.     I  'did  not  propose  to  take  the 
133319 — 19 7 


96  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

time  of  the  committee  in  going  over  the  separate  provisions  of  the 
bill. 

Mr.  VAILE.  There  are  some  I  have  noticed  that  ought  to  be  consid- 
ered, it  seems  to  me,  very  carefully. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Is  it  your  opinion  that  this  bill  will  be  accepted  by 
the  soldiers? 

Mr.  TIMBERLAKE.  I  saw  a  statement  by  a  former  Representative 
here  that  the  soldiers  do  not  care  for  any  of  this  land  or  swamp  land 
or  some  other  land,  and  they  were  not  looking  for  gratuities:  they 
want  to  have  an  even  chance.  My  understanding  is  that  this  bill  is 
acceptable. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Who  made  the  statement ;  where  did  it  come  from  ? 

Mr.  TIMBERLAKE.  Mr  Lundeen.  out  at  Arlington  yesterday. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  didn't  catch  that. 

Mr.  TIMBERLAKE.  He  said  the  soldiers  in  Minnesota  didn't  want 
any  special  privileges  or  gratuities:  that  he  did  not  think  any  of 
them  would  avail  themselves  of  the  opportunity  to  get  swamp  lands 
or  cut-over  lands. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  The  position  of  Colorado  is  that  this  great  develop- 
ment is  not  only  for  the  country,  but  it  is  proper  also  for  the  return- 
ing soldiers;  it  can  be  combined  together.  It  is  a  great  constructive 
measure,  a  humane  measure,  and  beneficial  to  the  returning  soldier 
especially. 

Mr.  TIMBERLAKE.  I  can  say  that  that  is  the  view  that  I  found. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  were  one  of  the  Colorado  homesteaders  your>elf  '. 

Mr.  TIMBERLAKE.  I  homesteaded  in  Colorado  in  1885. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Do  you  not  know  anything  about  the  farmers'  views 
on  this? 

Mr.  TIMBERLAKE.  Wherever  I  went  they  favor  it. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  The  American  Federation  of  Labor — do  you  know 
what  their  attitude  is  in  Colorado? 

Mr.  TIMBERLAKE.  I  have  heard  that  it  was  not  very  favorable,  but 
personally  I  do  not. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Their  secretary  came  here  to-day  before  you  appeared, 
Mr.  Sterling,  and  he  thought  they  were  pretty  generally  for  it. 

Mr.  TIMBERLAKE.  He  did.  I  understand  the  National  Grange  offi- 
cers, the  Grange,  had  appeared  here  and  expressed  opposition. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  They  did,  but  there  have  been  others  here  who  have 
expressed  themselves  favorably. 

Mr.  TIMBERLAKE.  I  have  a  great  many  members  of  the  Grange  in 
my  district.  I  talked  with  not  only  the  officials,  but  I  talked  with 
many  members,  and  I  found  no  opposition,  and  so  I  questioned  quite 
strongly  the  statement  I  heard  here  that  the  Grange  organizations  of 
the  country  opposed  it. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Did  you  make  any  effort  to  sound  the  opinion  of  th& 
returning  soldiers  on  this  particular  project  as  to  whether  they 
favored  it? 

Mr.  TIMBERLAKE.  I  haven't  had  much  opportunity  in  that  direc- 
tion, but  I  was  receiver  of  the  Land  Office  of  Sterling  for  17  years. 
and  by  reason  of  that  I  have  had  a  very  voluminous  correspondence 
from  soldiers  in  Colorado  with  reference  to  what  arrangements  were 
going  to  be  made  that  would  make  it  possible  for  soldiers  to  get 
homesteads.  I  do  not  know  how  many,  but  I  presume  I  have  had 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  97 

fortv  or  fifty  letters,  to  state  it  conservatively,  from  returning  soldiers 
f  roiii  my  district  that  they  have  written  with  reference  to  this  matter. 

Mr.  FEKRIS.  Is  it  favorable 9 

Mr.  TIMBERLAKE.  Entirely  favorable,  and  very  anxious  to  avail 
themselves  of  some  propostion  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Then,  so  far  as  you  know,  the  American  Federation  of 
La  I  tor.  the  farmers'  organizations,  and  the  farmers  themselves,  and 
the  returning  soldiers,  so  far  as  they  were  from  the  State  of  Colorado, 
were  all  favorable? 

Mr.  TIMBERLAKE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  if  there  is  any  opposition  to  it,  you  know  nothing 
about  it  ( 

Mr.  TIMBKKLAKE.  That  is  the  fact.  Now,  gentlemen,  that  is  all, 
unless  there  is  some  other  question  that  anyone  wants  to  ask. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  all.  Mr.  Timberlake.  We  thank  you  very- 
much  for  your  statement.  We  have  Judge  Richards,  of  Idaho,  who 
will  favor' us  wirh  a  statement  at  this  time. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  J.  H.  RICHARDS,  OF  BOISE,  IDAHO. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Please  state  your  name,  address,  and  occupation. 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  J.  H.  Richards,  Boise,  Idaho;  lawyer.  I  left  Colo- 
rado in  1890.  going  there  in  1871).  the  time  that  there  was  a  great 
mining  activity  there,  and  from  that  time  T  have  had  quite  a  large 
part  in  the  reclamation  of  such  valleys  as  the  Snake  River  in  the 
Slate  of  Idaho. 

When  the  reclamation  act  was  passed,  Mr.  Xewell  and  Mr.  Bien, 
counsel  for  the  bureau,  came  to  me  and  said:  "We  have  power  to 
reclaim  the  West :  we  have  neither  money  nor  plans.  We  want  your 
help."  My  practice  along  the  line  of  reclamation  had  been  quite 
exten.-ive.  because  we  had  no  defined  law  on  irrigation  when  I  went 
there,  and  we  had  to  anticipate  what  the  law  should  be.  I  have  had 
quite  an  active  part  in  estaolishing  the  irrigation  laws  as  they  stand 
in  Idaho  to-day.  I  said :  "  I  will  give  you  whatever  time  is  necessary 
and  pay  my  own  expenses  until  you  get  organized,  and  then  I  will 
re>ii>T.."  I  g'.ive  them  six  months  and  two  weeks  in  preparing  a 
form  or  plan  of  organization  in  the  reclaiming -of  this  valley  now 
covered  by  this  great  Arrow  Rock  Dam — 400,000  acres — and  I  went 
to  every  s^hoolhouse  in  that  section  over  that  whole  project  and  ar- 
ranged with  the  farmers  and  landowners  to  sign  up  and  tie  them- 
selves to  the  Government  of  this  Nation  in  helping  to  reclaim  that 
great  body  of  land.  I,  with  their  assistance,  prepared  plans  and  sub- 
mitted them  to  Secretary  Hitchcock,  who  was  Secretary  at  that  time, 
the  plan-  that  are  still  in  vogue  there.  I  tell  you  this  to  show  my 
knowledge  of  the  situation.  About  a  year  after.  Mr.  Bien  came  to 
my  office  and  said  :  "  I  have  good  news  for  you.  We  have  had  plans 
submitted  by  every  arid  Statt.  and  the  Secretary  has  adopted  your 
plans  without  change.  It  will  be  the  basis  of  the  reclamation  of  the 
West."  I  said:  "That  is  sufficient,  and  I  will  resign."  ••  Xo:  we  wain 
you  to  go  down  to  the  Secretary,  to  come  Ku-t.  to  get  $300.000  to 
start  the  surveys:"  and  so  I  came  on  with  Gov.  Steunenberg.  The 
result  is  that  the  great  Snake  River  Valley  i>  filled  now  largely 
with  homes. 


98  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

I  talked  with  Mr.  Calvin,  the  head  of  the  Union  Pacific,  the  day 
before  yesterday,  and  he  stated  to  me  that  the  Short  Line  brought 
out  of  the  Twin  Falls  project  products  of  over  $40,000,000  in  value 
last  year.  It  was  14  years  ago  that  this  was  started. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  HOAV  does  that  compare  with  what  Avas  taken  out 
prior  ? 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  There  was  not  a  thing  before  but  jack  rabbits  and 
coyotes.  They  took  their  pelts  out  and  that  was  all  there  was.  That 
whole  Snake 'River  project  largelv  was  sagebrush.  My  wife  wept 
when  she  saw  it  to  think  I  had  taken  her  to  such  a  desert.  To-day 
it  is  one  of  the  garden  spots  of  this  Xation.  There  is  nothing  more 
beautiful.  I  have  seen  wheat  produced  in  the  Twin  Falls  project 
last  year  SO  bushels  to  the  acre.  That  is  extreme.  I  have  seen  the 
farmers  get  for  alfalfa  $15  a  ton  and  11  tons  to  the  acre  in  one  year. 
This  is  scientific  farming. 

What  I  like  about  this  bill  is  thLs:  When  the  Government  passed 
an  act  to  give  pensions  to  our  former  soldiers  of  the  rebellion,  it 
seemed  to  me  it  was  most  depressing,  because  they  went  to  our  sol- 
diers' homes  and  other  places  to  wait  to  die.  They  were  not  living  a 
life  of  activity.  This  bill  gives  to  our  soldiers  something  to  live  for. 
Remember  that  irrigation  is  scientific  farming,  absolutely.  I  do  not 
care- how  rich  the  soldier  is,  the  richer  the  better,  because  he  can  make 
a  better  farmer  out  of  himself  and  a  better  stock  grower  by  reason 
of  that.  If  he  is  poor  the  Government  can  help  him,  and  if  he  has 
any  pluck,  such  as  our  soldiers  indicate  that  they  have,  they  will  be 
successful,  because  every  acre  out  there  is  capable  of  producing  large 
quantities,  and  our  fanners  are  prosperous.  I  do  not  find  any  Atti- 
tude of  the  farmers  that  they  do  not  want  this  act  passed,  but  quite 
to  the  contrary.  Our  farmers  in  Twin  Falls  project,  and  yon  ought 
to  see  it,  have  got  the  best  courthouse  and  best  public-school  build- 
ing in  the  whole  State  of  Idaho,  and  it  is  only  14  years  old:  paved 
streets  and  great  business  blocks.  These  men  came  from  the  Central 
West  and  have  made  successful  farmers.  The  land  to-day  is  selling* 
from  $150  to  $350  per  acre  and  it  pays  10  per  cent  on  that  value.  A 
man  will  study  and  learn  how  to  scientifically  farm,  because  the  soil 
and  sunshine  are  there,  and  water  at  the  time  and  in  the  quantity 
needed  makes  farming  scientific. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Were  these  men  all  experienced  farmers? 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  None  of  them.  I  should  not  say  none,  but  a  very 
large  percentage  of  them  were  not.  But  they  are  experienced 
fanners  now,  and  it  would  be  worth  your  effort  to  come  out  and  see 
what  wonderful  things  they  are  doing.  Our  soldiers,  as  I  watched 
them,  are  largely  a  class  of  men  that  have  got  energy  and  ambi- 
tion, and  out  in  that  country  if  you  give  them  the  opportunity,  rich 
or  poor,  they  will  make  a  success  of  it  in  a  large  percentage  of  cases, 
because  they  can  not  help  it.  We  want  to  put  the  water  and  the  land 
and  the  sunshine  together  with  an  intelligent  man  with  them  on 
these  projects  to  show  these  beginners  how  to  farm,  and  they  can  not 
fail  if  they  have  any  energy  at  all.  That  great  project  under  the 
Arrow  Rock  Dam — 400.000  acres — just  blossoms  there  to-day.  It  is 
becoming  a  great  dairy  and  fruit  country.  It  is  remarkable-  that 
dairying.  The  Carnation  people  there  have  special  cars  that  go 
around  the  loop  of  interurban  lailroads  and  bring  in  milk  to  the  con- 
densing factory.  It  is  making  a  dairy  of  that  whole  section.  These 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  99 

men  are  successful,  and  I  say  a  large  percentage,  if  you  give  them  the 
opportunity,  will  be  successful,  because  they  could  not  nelp  it.  The 
spirit  of  it  is  to  give  the  soldier  something  to  live  for  rather  than 
waiting  to  die.  I  do  not  like  the  pension  system,  but  help  a  man 
to  live,  and  don't  encourage  him  to  wait  to  die;  and  that  is  the 
kind  of  man  we  want  in  the  western  country.  It  will  not  take  long 
to  build  that  work  and  get  them  to  working  and  in  successful  homes. 
]  am  down  here  now  with  men  who  are  expecting  in  the  near  future 
to  spend  from  fifty  to  one  hundred  million  dollars  on  projects  there, 
and  I  am  here  hoping  that  we  can  cooperate  with  the  Government. 
We  have  so  much  water  in  the  Snake  River  Valley — we  have  so 
much  land — and  with  irrigation  and  water  power,  if  you  coordinate 
these  things  with  the  transportation  companies,  it  will  make  that 
valley  one  of  the  most  productive  valleys  in  this  Nation  to-day. 
The  increase  in  valuation  and  taxation  in  that  valley  is  simply  enor- 
mous— beyond  anything  I  have  ever  seen  before.  Talk  about  the 
value  being  $6,000  a  farm — that  is  not  a  circumstance.  You  take 
a  man  with  a  farm  of  80  acres  or  100  acres,  which  is  selling  to-day 
for  $350  an  acre;  you  can  see  what  that  means,  and  it  pays  the  in- 
tcn-vt  on  that  value.  But  it  is  scientific  farming  absolutely. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  any  opposition  among  the  farmers  there 
to  the  enlargement  of  these  plans  ? 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  Certainly  not.  We  could  bring  them  here  unani- 
mous. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  any  fear  of  added  competition  ? 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  Xot  in  the  slightest. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  take  it  from  your  statement  and  your  experience 
that  it  would  be  your  view  that  in  legislation  of  this  character  as 
applied  to  the  soldiers,  being  that  we  are  attempting  legislation  for 
them,  that  we  treat  the  soldiers  practically  all  the  same  and  give 
every  man  who  has  a  good  character,  which  I  assume  they  all  have, 
the  opportunity  to  get  one  of  these  places  whether  he  has  been  a 
farmer  or  not. 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  That  is  what  I  mean.  This  principle  underlies  our 
whole  Government  system,  and  that  is  the  more  men  you  place  on 
homes  of  their  own — I  do  not  care  how  small  it  is  if  it  is  his  home — 
he  is  an  element  of  safety  in  this  Government.  [Applause.] 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  We  find  it  true  in  the  home-life  building  of  these 
great  reclaimed  deserts :  they  are  the  healthiest,  most  wholesome,  and 
most  prosperous  individuals  we  have,  merchants  not  excepted.  And 
the  merchants  and  bankers  have  to  succeed  because  these  farmers  are 
depositing  money  there  to  such  an  extent  you  would  be  astounded. 
They  have  beautiful  automobiles,  and  have  beautiful  bungalows  built 
on  these  farms.  You  would  be  surprised  to  go  up  there  and  see 
them.  The  farmers  have  beautiful  lawns  and  flowers,  such  things 
as  I  did  not  see  very  often  as  I  traveled  here. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  the  average  size  of  the  farm  unit  there? 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  They  vary,  depending  entirely  upon  the  man's 
capacity  financially,  from  'JO  acre's  up  to  1.200. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  make  a  living  for  a  farmer  on  :JO  acres? 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  Certainly  they  do:  and  schoolhouses — churches  and 
schoolhouses — are  the  first  things  they  build:  right  out  on  the  desert 


100  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

ii  magnificent  schoolhouse  will  come  up  right  on  the  desert,  and  I 
think  it  is  most  wholesome,  this  legislation  to  give  this  thing  to  the 
soldiers  who  have  offered  a  sacrifice  on  their  part.  If  a  man  does 
not  avail  himself  of  it,  it  is  his  own  fault. 

Mr.  RAKER.  From  your  own  experience  of  this  and  your  observa- 
tion, it  would  not  be  wise  to  fix  a  hard  and  fast  rule  whereby  anyone 
could  select  these  men?  In  other  words,  should  not  they  be  given 
some  opportunity  to  use  their  own  selection? 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  I  would  simply  offer  the  opportunity,  giving  them 
all  the  light  you  can.  They  will  be  sure  to  avail  themselves  of  it  as 
far  as  possible,  and  they  will  be  furnished  men  to  guide  them  how  to 
be  successful.  We  learned  that  i:rom  the  Mormon  people  out  in  that 
country.  Their  bishops  had  charge.  For  instance,  I  used  to  wonder 
that  they  said  they  all  voted  one  way:  if  you  had  the  Mormon  vote, 
you  had  everything.  This  is  the  situation  in  campaigning  through- 
out that  State  that  I  found:  A  young  couple  from  Sweden  would  be 
brought  over.  They  would  all  get  together  and  procure  for  them 
ICO  acres.  They  would  get  a  piece  of  land  and  select  it  for  them. 
The  neighbors  would  join  and  build  a  log  hut  or  dig  a  hole  in  a  bank 
for  a  home  and  give  them  a  wagon,  a  couple  of  horses,  and  a  milk 
cow,  and  the  bishop  would  show  them  how  to  succeed.  They  paid 
their  10  per  cent,  and  have  succeeded  in  that  way. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Pay  10  per  cent  in  tithes? 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  Yes,  sir.  I  have  campaigned  throughout  all  this 
country  and  have  watched  them  succeed,  and  while  they  have  paid 
that  extra  10  per  cent,  or  100  per  cent  every  10  years,  they  have  been 
prosperous,  because  they  had  business  men  to  guide  them:  and  we 
have  taken  advantage  of  that  system  in  the  reclamation  district.  I 
am  not  a  Mormon,  a  long  ways  from  it,  but  I  had  learned  that  lesson 
from  that  organization.  They  are  successful  people  because  they 
put  business  men  over  them  to  show  them  how,  and  that  is  what  the 
reclamation  is  doing.  We  have  skilled  men.  They  have  experi- 
mental farms  and  lectures  by  men  who  know  what  'they  are  doing 
and  how  to  do  it- 
Mr.  TAYLOR.  Is  it  safe  to  say  that  this  committee  and  Congress, 
rverv  one  from  the  arid  States,  would  be  practically  unanimous  for 
this  bill? 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  I  have  no  doubt  about  it. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  There  would  not  be  a  dissenting  vote  from  the  irri- 
gating States,  would  there? 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  Colorado  is  my  first  adopted  State.  I  went  there  in 
1879,  and  most  of  these  men  I  knew  are  not  any  more.  I  begin  to  feel 
I  am  one  of  the  ancients  when  I  get  back  to  Denver.  That  whole 
western  country  can  not  be  otherwise  than  in  favor  of  it.  It  is  its 
salvation.  It  puts  the  man  on  the  farm  for  a  home,  and  that  is  the 
best  thing  you  can  do  for  this  country  anywhere. 

Mi1.  TAYLOR  of  Idaho.  What  is  your  native  Slate? 

Mi-.  RICHARDS.  Ohio.  I  have  had  an  active  part  in  studying  this 
<|iiestion  on  (lie  bench  and  with  lawyers  on  both  sides,  and  have  had  a 
large  part  in  laying  the  foundation  of  the  reclamation  in  Idaho. 
Everybody  knows  me  from  one  end  of  the  State  to  the  other.  I  never 
wanted  anything  politically.  I  have  worked  for  such  men  as  Mr. 
Smith  and  Senator  Borah  to  represent  us.  I  want  to  help  (he  Stale 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  101 

into  a  proper  home  life,  and  everybody  knows  it  from  one  end  of  the 
State  to  the  other,  and  I  am  so  glad  that  I  happened  to  be  here.  I 
didn't  think  of  talking  to  you  any  more  than  going  to  the  moon  until 
Mr.  Smith  asked  me  to  clo  it.  I  am  absolutely  infatuated  with  this 
idea  of  giving  these  soldiers  the  chance,  if  he  wants  it,  to  avail  him- 
self, and  we  will  make  him  succeed,  if  he  comes  out  and  takes  the 
chance. 

Mr.  RAKER.  If  he  gets  discouraged,  he  can  not  help  it. 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  We  will  put  him  there  with  the  machinery. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Is  it  your  thought  that  a  very  large  percentage  of 
soldiers  can  be  made  to  realize  this? 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Your  returning  soldiers,  have  you  conversed  with 
them  ? 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  Lots  of  them. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Do  they  all  like  this? 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  Practically  all  I  have  talked  with.  Mr.  I.  B.  Per- 
rine,  here,  is  the  father  of  the  Twin  Falls  country.  He  knows  that 
the  soldier  goes  there  and  takes  100  acres  of  land,  and  in  14  years  is 
rich,  and  has  enough  to  take  care  of  himself  on  that  100  acres  of 
land,  worth  $350  an  acre,  and  it  is  there  producing  crops  to-day. 
This  soldier  can  not  help  but  do  it,  and  that  is  the  reason  we  are  here 
to  get  laws  and  see  how  we  can  cooperate  in  our  undertaking.  I  mean 
coordinate  transportation,  power,  and  reclamation  of  that  country 
and  we  will  place  men  out  there  to  guide  these  soldiers  how  to  make 
themselves  successful,  if  you  will  plant  that  there.  That  is  what  we 
want.  They  are  good  men,  and  we  will  make  better  men.  If  the 
Government  does  not  do  it,  we  are  going  to  do  it  anyhow,  because  we 
can  do  it. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Could  you  take  this  condition :  Take  10  men  that  have 
been  raised  in  New  York  City  or  in  Chicago  up  to  the  age  of  40  years 
and  lived  there,  living  on  a  day's  wages  or  salary,  living  under  city 
conditions  all  their  lives,  and  carry  that  proposition  out ;  would  it  be 
sufficiently  attractive  to  make  them  happy  and  contented  and  settle 
down  ? 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  Any  man  who  desires  to  better  his  condition  and  has 
this  opportunity  to  come  out  there  and  do  it  and  let  us  show  him 
around  there  will  be  no  difficulty. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  If  you  make  your  question,  aged  30  years,  it  would  be 
better. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Make  it  25  or  30  years.  I  am  for  this  legislation. 
Some  very  good  people  in  Congress  and  others  are  of  the  opinion  that 
this  is  a  sort  of  Utopia  that  could  never  come  true,  and  it  will  be  very 
valuable  to  this  record  here  and  for  the  committee  and  the  proponents 
of  this  legislation  to  have  a  man  who  knows  what  he  is  talking  about 
touch  upon  these  points,  because  these  are  points  that  require  con- 
sideration. 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  I  have  been  in  that  kind  of  work  ever  since  I  went 
to  Idaho.  There  is  scarcely  a  place  in  the  whole  400,000  acres  that  I 
have  not  been  over  and  seeii  how  they  have  progressed  in  the  last  10, 
15,  or  20  years.  They  wrill  come  there  and  learn,  and  I  presume  some 
wTill  fail — -don't  know  hov>",  haven't  energy,  and  know  too  much — but 
if  they  will  come  there  and  learn,  for  instance,  that  too  much  water 
is  worse  than  not' enough,  they  can  not  fail  to  succeed. 


102  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Idaho.  Is  it  not  true  that  probably  50  per  cent 
of  the  settlers  on  our  reclamation  projects,  especially  in  the  Twin 
Falls  country,  were  formerly  business  or  professional  men  or  clerks 
from  cities? 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  In  stores;  druggists  and  merchants:  everybody  all 
over  the  Middle  West. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  you  said  has  application,  of  course;  it  is  true 
that  there  are  not  arable  lauds  enough  to  go  very  far  for  these 
4,000,000  soldiers  ( 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  We  have  a  lot  of  cut-over  laud. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  can  be  done  along  that  line  ( 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  I  have  had  figures  on  what  it  would  cost  to  clear 
the  stumpage. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Of  course  the  unit  of  area  would  have  to  be  much 
larger  for  the  dry  land>? 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  You  go  up  by  Moscow  and  iu  that  country  and 
see  what  they  can  produce  on  cut-over  land  after  it  has  been  cleared. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  are  speaking  of  Idaho  conditions  now,  not  any 
other  State?  You  could  not  say  that  with  reference  to  Colorado  and 
California  ? 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  When  I  went  out  to  Mount  Vernon  and  saw  how 
your  country  here,  between  here  and  Mount  Yernon,  needed  reclama- 
tion, I  wondered  you  don't  do  something  to  reclaim  the  Kast. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  There  is  not  enough  soil  there  to  reclaim.  They  could 
get  it  all  but  the  soil. 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  That  valley  is  beautiful.  But  it  was  like  Colorado 
in  the  early  days  with  no  water;  they  told  Gen.  Sherman  all  they 
lacked  was  shade  and  water  and  he  said  that  is  all  hell  lacks.  It  i-  a 
good  place  to  live  in  now.  and  I  toil  you  that  the  Snake  River  Yalley 
is  a  wonder  for  water  power. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  How  man}'  soldiers  could  you  take  care  of  in  that 
vallev  ( 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  There  are  2.000,000  acres. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Two  million  acres  subject  to  reclamation? 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  That  is.  that  would  take  care  of  how  many  returning 
soldiers? 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  I  think  you  ought  to  average  eighty  to  one  hundred 
acres  per  man,  possibly ;  I  think  a  man  can  take  care  of  80  acres.  It 
would  be  better  if  it  was  40.  I  think  40  would  be  a  better  unit.  He 
can  make  a  fine  living  on  40. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  That  would  take  care  of  a  comparatively  small  num- 
ber. Are  there  very  extensive  areas  that  could  take  care  of  them 
at  an  equal  cost? 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  Not  extensive,  no.  Our  timberlands  are  largely 
at  Boise  and  near  there,  where  they  are  cutting  about  800.000  feet 
a  day.  The  land  that  they  cut  over  is  not  subject  to  reclamation  at 
all.  In  North  Idaho  it  is  subject  to  it. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  In  that  section  there  is  no  water  \ 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  They  don't  need  water  there:  it  rains  there.  Still 
in  southern  Idaho  we  have  no  rain  to  speak  of  from  this  time  until 
Christmas. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  It  is  irrigation  or  nothing  at  all. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  103 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  There  are  some  dry  farmers  in  American  Falls 
there,  but  it  is  so  uncertain.  This  plan  that  we  are  here  upon  now 
i»  the  reclamation  of  dry  farming  country. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Is  there  water  available  for  that? 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  It  will  take  dams  to  cover  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  think,  Judge,  you  have  considered  or 
examined  into  the  possibility  of  projects  here  in  the  East  and  North  ? 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  No;  I  am  not  qualified  to  present  anything  worth 
while.  I  have  seen  your  country  from  one  end  of  the  train  and  I  am 
disappointed  to  see  how  these  farms  fail  to  produce.  As  a  boy  I 
thought  Ohio  was  the  greatest  country  in  the  world,  but  as  I  go  back 
to  the  place  where  I  lived  as  a  youth,  when  I  thought  it  raised  great 
crops,  I  am  disappointed. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Don't  you  recognize  the  difference  between  virgin 
soil  and  old  soil? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  has  been  suggested  to  me  that  the  putting  of 
fertilizer  on  the  soil  in  the  East  is  logically  the  same  as  putting 
water  on  the  lands  in  the  West. 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  If  they  would  put  $50  of  fertilizer  to  an  acre  in 
their  lands  you  would  have  something.  We  pay  $100  an  acre  for 
water  rights  out  there;  we  who  put  water  on  our  land  have  got some- 
tiling.  If  you  put  fertilizer  on  here  you  would  have  something  here. 
We  have  a  billion  tons  of  phosphate  out  in  that  State;  that  ought 
to  be  utilized  by  the  Government  and  spread  it  over  these  farms  in 
the  East  and  West.  It  is  lying  there  doing  nobody  any  good. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Secretary's  investigation  has  disclosed  in- 
numerable projects  in  the  South  and  also  in  the  North  and  North- 
east. 

Mr.  RICHARDS.  We  want  them  reclaimed  also.  The  West  will  be 
with  you  in  the  way  of  reclaiming  and  placing  homes,  either  swamp 
or  cut  over  lands  or  desert  lands.  We  know  what  it  means  to  this 
country.  We  are  with  you  on  the  whole  proposition  all  the  time.  I 
have  given  a  large  part  of  my  life  unselfishly  to  this  matter  and  I 
think  likely  I  know  what  I  "am  talking  about;  outside  of  that  I 
do  not  pretend  to  know. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  any  further  questioning  of  the  Judge? 
We  thank  you  very  much.  It  is  now  12  o'clock,  gentlemen,  and  we 
will  stand  adjourned  until  Monday  morning  at  10  o'clock. 

(Thereupon,  at  12  o'clock  noon,  the  committee  adjourned  to  meet 
at  10  o'clock  a.  m..  Mondav,  June  2,  1919.) 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 


COMMITTEE  ON  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS, 

HOUSE  or  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Monday,  June  0,  1919. 

The -committee  this  day  met.  Hon.  X.  J.  Sinnott  (chairman)  pre- 
•  si  ding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen,  the  committee  will  come  to  order.  Mr. 
Vaile  and  Mr.  Taylor  had  departmental  calls  this  morning1  and  they 
will  be  in  later.  We  have  with  us  this  morning  Gen.  Cole,  of  Massa- 
chusetts, who  will  address  the  committee.  Gentlemen.  I  will  intro- 
duce to  you  Gen.  Cole.  I  understand  the  general  was  in  the  first 
division  to  go  over  with  the  Regular  Army.  However,  the  genera1 
can  explain  his  own  biography  better  than  I  can  in  that  connection. 
We  will  be  pleased  to  hear  from  you.  General.  Will*  you  state  to 
the  committee  your  name,  address,  and  occupation  ? 

STATEMENT  OF  GEN.  CHARLES  H.  COLE,  BOSTON,  MASS. 

Gen.  COLE.  My  name  is  Charles  H.  Cole,  and  I  was  formerlj7  brig- 
adier general  of  the  Twenty-sixth  Division,  not  with  the  Regular 
Army,  but  the  First  National  Guard  Division  to  go  over,  not  the 
regular  service,  and  was  formerly  police  commissioner  and  fire  com- 
missioner of  the  city  of  Boston,*  and  adjutant  general  of  the  State 
of  Massachusetts. 

The   CHAIRMAN.  Were  you   an  enlisted  man,  General? 

Gen.  COLE.  I  enlisted  at  the  beginning  of  the  war,  because  I  was 
over  age  to  get  a  commission  that  I  might  have  been  able  to  obtain. 
I  spent  a  year  and  a  half  in  France  with  my  division,  16  months  with 
the  combat  division,  the  Twenty-sixth,  and  seven  months  of  that 
time  on  the  firing  line.  My  brigade  was  on  the  firing  line,  and  I 
believe  I  was  longer  in  command  of  troops  actually  on  the  firing 
line  than  any  general  officer  in  the  Army.  I  simply  state  that,  gen- 
tlemen, for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  perhaps  I  am  as  familiar 
with  what  the  soldiers  may  need  as  any  other  officer  of  my  rank. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  may  proceed  in  your  own  way,  General,  to 
take  up  this  matter. 

Gen.  COLE.  Gentlemen,  I  have  read  this  bill.  H.  R.  487,  and  have 
talked  it  over  with  men  in  Massachusetts  and  men  who  are  familiar 
with  it.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  bill.  First,  I  speak  as  a  citizen.  I 
believe  it  is  in  line  with  the  progressive  legislation  of  the  age;  that 
it  will  tend  to  make  the  Nation  a  stronger  Nation.  The  more  we 
encourage  agriculture  and  independent  farming,  the  stronger  the 
Nation  will  be  in  my  opinion. 

I  have  just  come  back  from  France,  and.  in  my  opinion,  the 
farmers  of  France  were  what  saved  France.  France  is  highly  cul- 

105 


106  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

tivated  agriculturally,  and  almost  every  foot  of  ground  is  taken, 
and  during  all  my  time  and  travel  through  France  I  have  never 
seen  but  one  field  where  there  were  weeds,  to  show  you  what  scientific 
cultivation  it  has  for  a  nation. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  was  not  in  here  when  the  general 
started.  Whom  does  he  represent  or  speak  for? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  is  Gen.  Cole,  who  is  representing  the  senti- 
ment among  the  soldiers  and  the  sentiment  in  Massachusetts. 

Gen.  COLE.  From  the  soldiers'  standpoint,  I  believe  this  bill  will 
be  a  splendid  thing  for  them.  They  have  come  back  from  France. 
nfter  having  been  there  a  year  and"a  half.  During  that  time  they 
have  matured  20  years  mentally.  They  have  come  back  here  and 
many  of  them  are  not  now  receiving  their  old  jobs  back  again,  and 
many  of  them  have  outgrown  their  old  jobs.-  I  realize  that  the  State 
and  cities  of  Massachusetts,  and  I  speak  particularly  of  Massa- 
chusetts, and  the  business  men  of  Massachusetts  are  using  all  their 
agencies  possible  to  place  them  back  at  work,  but  the  fact  still  re- 
mains that  they  are  not  back  and  that  there  are  many  of  them  who 
are  still  out  of  work.  They  went  to  war  with  a  spirit  of  intense 
patriotism.  We  have  to  be  very  careful  that  that  spirit  of  intense 
patriotism  is  not  turned  into  a  spirit  of  intense  pessimism. 

I  know  my  own  feeling  as  I  came  back  here.  I  went,  for  in- 
stance, the  other  day  to  call  upon  one  of  the  richest  men  in  Boston 
to  ask  him  for  a  subscription  to  the  Salvation  Army  fund.  I  was 
chairman  of  the  committee  for  raising  that  fund.  He  said  he  was 
familiar  with  the  work,  but  he  could  not  give  us  any  money.  I 
said,  "  I  ask  you  to  give  us  a  subscription  simply  to  show  your  ap- 
preciation and  your  gratitude  for  what  the  Salvation  Army  did  for 
the  soldier  over  there."  He  then  told  me  he  thought  he  had  made 
sacrifices  enough;  that  with  the  income  tax  and  what  he  had  bought 
in  Victory  bonds,  etc.,  he  had  made  sacrifices  enough.  He  was  a  man 
worth  $10,000,000,  and  I  am  a  fairly  conservative  man :  but  I  left 
that  man  with  the  feeling  inside  of  me  that  perhaps  it  would  have 
been  better  if  none  of  us  had  ever  gone  over  to  fight  for  a  man  like 
that. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Why  did  you  not  tell  him  something? 

Gen.  COLE.  I  ought  to ;  I  should  have  told  him  that,  but  I  was  in- 
terested in  the  Salvation  Army  fund,  and  I  wanted  to  get  money. 
When  he  talked  about  making' sacrifices,  if  it  had  not  been  for  the 
soldiers  he  would  not  have  had  any  of  his  $10,000,000.  That  was  the 
feeling  that  I  had. 

I  was  on  the  end  of  a  tram  car  a  few  days  ago  where  there  were 
two  young  men.  One  of  them  was  a  soldier,  although  I  did  not 
know  he  was  a  soldier  until  afterwards,  as  both  of  them  were  in 
civilian  clothes.  The  young  man  who  had  stayed  at  home,  through 
no  fault  of  his  own,  perhaps,  as  he  may  not  have  been  able  to  go, 
said  to  the  soldier,  "  What  are  you  doing  now?  "  And  the  soldier 
had  to  reply  that  he  was  not  doing  anything;  he  did  not  have  a  job. 
1  was  in  a  Pullman  car  the  other  day  and  a  man  got  in  who  I  thought 
was  a  profiteer,  as  he  got  in  at  one  of  those  ammunition  places  along 
there  in  Connecticut.  I  was  busy  reading,  but  there  was  a  young 
ensign  opposite  me  who  was  asleep  on  the  arm  of  his  chair/  The 
other  man  brushed  into  him,  not  even  excusing  himself,  and  sat  down 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  107 

and  woke  up  the  ensign  without  offering  any  excuse  of  any  kind. 
That  aroused  the  same  feeling  in  me.  I  thought  to  myself,  "  Here 
you  have  stayed  at  home,  you  have  been  making  all  this  money  and 
you  have  not  even  got  the  courtesy  to  sit  down  carefully  without 
waking  up  a  soldier  who  has  been  "over  there  fighting  for  you. 

We  do  not  want  that  kind  of  spirit  in  these  men  who  come  back. 
They  are  a  splendid  lot  of  fellows,  and  if  the  United  States  gives 
them  the  opportunity,  they  will  be  the  finest  citizens  it  has  ever 
had.  I  do  not  believe  in  giving  them  a  mere  job.  I  do  not  want 
them  to  have  political  jobs,  but  this  bill  will  give  them  a  chance  to 
became  independent  citizens,  it  will  give  them  a  chance  and  an 
opportunity  to  do  something,  and.  in  my  opinion,  it  will  be  one  of 
the  very  best  possible  things  to  keep  these  men  from  becoming  dis- 
satisfied and  continual  agitators,  as  they  may  be,  and  it  is  only 
human  nature,  and  I  believe  we  can  avoid  that  if  they  are  given  ail 
opportunity  like  this  to  go  out  and  get  places  of  their  own  and  be- 
come independent  citizens  and  move  ahead  and  progress  along  the 
lines  that  they  have  seen  over  there.  These  men  have  grown  tre- 
mendously in  that  time,  they  have  really  outgrown  little  jobs,  and 
have  been  outdoors,  and  they  do  not  want  to  go  back  into  mills. 
They  have  been  living  out  of  doors  for  over  a  year  and  a  half,  and 
they  want  to  be  out  of  doors,  they  want  to  be  out  in  the  open  air, 
they  do  not  like  to  go  back  in  the  mills.  In  Massachusetts  we  had 
many  men  from  the  mills,  and  every  time  that  they  had  the  pref- 
erence they  would  take  an  outdoor  job,  and  this  bill  will  give  those 
men  an  ideal  opportunity  to  take  advantage  of,  and  it  is  not  giving 
them  anything  for  nothing,  but  thejT  are  going  ahead  and  getting  a 
return  for  their  energy  and  their  intelligence  and  their  ability. 

I  do  not  like  to  mention  the  word  "  Bolshevism,"  but  there  is  the 
feeling  among  the  soldiers,  and  it  is  only  human  nature,  that  they 
went  over  there  and  gave  up  their  jobs,  and  have  come  back  here, 
and  many  of  them  do  not  get  them  back  again.  Men  who  did  not 
go  over  have  been  making  high  wages,  have  been  making  perhaps 
more  than  they  did.  and  it  is  only  human  that  they  feel  dissatisfied, 
they  feel  that  their  work  and  their  sacrifices  were  not  appreciated, 
and  this  bill,  I  think,  is  the  only  thing  that  I  know  of  that  will  give 
them  the  opportunity  that  they  need. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  General,  have  you  heard  many  express  the  desire 
to  go  on  farms? 

Gen.  COLE.  In  France  almost  all  the  officers  I  have  talked  with, 
and,  of  course,  I  did  not  talk  with  the  men,  as  I  did  not  have  the 
opportunity  over  there,  have  said  that  after  the  war  was  over  they 
wanted  to  get  back  and  go  on  a  farm  and  live.  I  have  said  so  my- 
self. French  officers  would  say  so  almost  universally.  Now,  how 
seriously  they  meant  it  at  that' time  I  do  not  know,  but  that  is  the 
generarfeeling,  to  get  away  and  rest  quietly,  away  from  the  turmoil. 

Mr.  SNELL.  General,  what  is  your  experience,  that  these  men  are 
without  jobs  because  they  have  developed  so  in  the  year  and  a  half 
that  they  have  been  over  in  France  that  they  want  better  jobs,  or 
because  people  are  not  willing  to  take  them  back? 

Gen.  COLE.  Partly  that  their  places  are  filled. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Right  there,  what  I  am  especially  interested  in  is 
whether  you  believe  there  are  a  good  many  places  which  are  filled, 
and  they  are  not  willing  to  make  some  effort  to  take  them  back? 


108  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Gen.  COLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SNELL.  You  do? 

Gen.  COLE.  Yes,  sir.  I  did  not  think  that  was  so,  until  I  found 
out  it  was  so. 

Mr.  SNELL.  I  am  quite  surprised  to  find  that  is  so.  I  notice  a  great 
many  advertisements  in  Xew  York  of  large  firms  claiming  that  their 
jobs  are  ready  for  the  soldiers  on  their  return. 

Gen.  COLE.  That  is  why  I  hesitated  to  say  that,  because  so  many 
firms  have  done  that,  but  some  of  them  have  not.  I  know  of  a  case 
of  an  officer  in  my  command,  who  was  a  major  in  my  machine  gun 
battalion,  who  was  in  charge  of  the  department  store  of  the  town 
he  came  from,  and  they  told  him  when  he  went  away  that  he  would 
get  his  position  back  again,  but  when  he  came  back,  without  any 
word  or  any  chance  or  any  time  or  question,  he  was  not  given  his 
position  back,  but  was  thrown  out  and  left  on  his  uppers,  so  to  speak. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Would  you  not  say  that  was  the  exception  rather  than 
the  rule,  General  ? 

Gen.  COLE.  In  that  case  I  think  it  would  be.  I  think  they  have 
done  very  well,  but  there  are  cases  where  they  have  not  taken  them 
back.  I  am  not  saying  it  with  any  idea  of  getting  after  the  people, 
because  financial  conditions  and  different  things  enter  into  it,  so  it  is 
very  nearly  impossible  to  give  the  man  his  job  back.  I  am  not  say- 
ing it  with  any  idea  of  getting  after  the  employers,  because  sometimes- 
they  can  not  afford  to  do  it  themselves. 

Mr.  SNELL.  On  account  of  the  conditions  as  they  exist  ? 

Gen.  COLE.  Yes. 

Mr.  SNELL.  I  presume  the  statement  you  made  is  true,  that  a  large 
number  of  these  boys  have  grown  into  manhood  during  these  IS 
months,  and  they  really  want  and  are  capable  of  occupying  better 
position  than  when  they  went  over? 

Gen.  COLE.  Take  the  boy  who  went  over  as  a  private,  and  then  on 
account  of  his  gallantry  and  courage  is  promoted.  For  instance,  I 
know  of  one  who  was  24  years  old  last  December,  who  enlisted  as  a 
private  in  this  war.  and  was  promoted  and  came  back  as  a  lieutenant 
colonel.  His  last  three  promotions  were  for  gallantry  and  courage 
in  action  on  the  field  of  battle.  I  have  several  general  field  officers 
who  are  less  than  24  or  25  years  old.  They  have  grown  tremendously 
in  that  experience  of  a  year  and  a  half,  and  you  do  not  want  those 
boys  to  go  back  into  19,  20,  and  21-year  old  boys'  places.  They  ought 
to  be  given  an  opportunity,  because  it  is  going  to  help  the  country  in 
the  end  to  have  men  like  that. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Are  those  individual  boys  you  speak  of  going  on  these 
farms,  do  you  think? 

Gen.  COLE.  Well.  I  can  not  say.  One  of  them  was  a  college  student 
when  he  started.  One  of  them  that  I  know  of  is  a  farmer  already.  I 
do  not  know  what  the  business  of  the  other  two  is. 

Mr.  SMITH.  We  have  a  great  many  college  students  in  the  irrigated 
areas  of  Idaho  who  are  making  better  farmers  thai,  some  men  who 
did  not  have  a  college  education. 

Gen.  COLE.  I  do  not  know,  because  I  did  not  happen  to  talk  with 
them  individually  about  this  thing.  That  is  the  exceptional  example, 
but  there  are  many  of  them  that  went  as  privates  and  came  back  as 
sergeants,  first  sergeants,  and  lieutenants,  who  have  handled  from 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  109 

25  to  100  or  200  men,  and  handled  them  through  the  acid  test  of  war, 
and  those  men  need  bigger  jobs  than  merely  working  in  a  mill. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  General,  could  this  plan  be  put  in  practical  op- 
eration in  the  State  of  Massachusetts?  Have  you  made  any  in- 
vestigation of  that? 

Gen.  COLE.  I  have  made  a  thorough  investigation,  Mr.  Chairman, 
and  I  am  firmly  of  the  opinion  that  it  could  be.  I  have  for  years, 
or  for  the  last  few  years,  been  a  very  strong  advocate  of  the  revival 
of  agriculture  in  Massachusetts,  and  I  believe  there  are  great  oppor- 
tunities there,  because  agriculture  has  declined  tremendously  in 
Massachusetts  for  the  last  50  or  75  years.  Farms  to-day  are  not  worth 
nearly  as  much  as  they  were  50  or  75  or  100  years  ago.  and  there  are, 
I  believe,  many  excellent  opportunities  in  Massachusetts  to  develop 
a  project  such  as  is  outlined  here. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Are  there  many  abandoned  farms  in  Massachusetts? 

Gen.  COLE.  I  will  not  say  they  are  abandoned.  There  are  aban- 
doned farms  there,  but  they  are  farms  worth  very  little  money,  and 
might  just  as  well  be  abandoned  because  they  are  not  worked,  and 
need  money  to  be  spent  upon  them,  need  something  done  in  the  way 
of  roads,  or  in  the  way  of  putting  the  land  in  shape,  or  in  the  way 
of  building  the  community.  Some  of  them  are  so  far  away  from  any- 
thing that  the  people  do  not  want  to  go  there. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  What  will  have  to  be  done,  General,  to  put  those 
lands  in  shape?  I  am  asking  that  question  for  information. 

Gen.  COLE.  I  think  there  are  several  things.  I  would  make  it  a 
community,  for  one  thing;  I  would  revive  the  land,  for  a  second 
thing;  and  I  would  make  roads.  Of  course,  the  markets  in  Massa- 
chusetts are  very  handy,  very  near. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  if,  to  your  knowledge,  there 
are  enough  of  those  abandoned  farms  contiguous  to  justify  the 
organization  of  a  community  project  in  that  State  ? 

Gen.  COLE.  In  Massachusetts? 

Mr.  WHITE.  Yes,  sir. 

Gen.  COLE.  I  believe  there  are. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  How  many  soldiers  have  you  talked  with,  Gen- 
eral, along  this  line,  and  heard  thorn  express  themselves  indicating 
a  desire  and  a  willingness  to  go  on  farms  along  a  scheme  like  this? 
Just  in  a  general  way,  about  how  many  have  you  heard  express 
themselves  ( 

(Jen.  COLE.  I  could  not  say.  I  never  talked  specifically  on  this 
th  i  no-. 

Mr.  HEKSMAN.  Quite  a  number? 

Gen.  COLE.  I  would  say  quite  a  number. 

Mi-.  HEIISMAN.  Do  they  realize  what  it  is  to  develop  a  farm 
under  these  conditions — to  go  in  there  and  work  for  a  number  of 
years  at  day  labor  until  they  get  money  enough  to  pay  on  their 
farm,  and  then  develop  a  farm  as  a  farm  lias  to  l>e  developed?  Do 
they  know  what  they  have  to  t»;o  through — the  courage  and  endurance 
that  it  will  take  to  make  a  success  of  that — and  the  number  of  year? 
it  will  take?  Do  you  think  they  realize  that  ( 

Gen.  COLE.  Of  course,  that  is  a  question  I  can  not  answer,  whether 
they  realize  it  or  not:  but  in  Massachusetts  I  do  not  think  it  will 
be  so  long  a  time.  We  could  obtain  some  of  this  money  from 
Massachusetts. 


110  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  would  like  to  ask  if  you  have  had  farm  experience 
in  your  early  life? 

Gen.  COLE.  Slightly,  when  I  was  a  boy,  simply  from  choice. 

Mr.  GANDY.  Did  I  understand  you  to  say  that  some  of  these  tracts 
that  are  not  occupied  in  Massachusetts,  are  back  off  the  railroad  ? 

Gen.  COLE.  Yes;  some  of  them  are  away  from  the  railroad. 

Mr.  GANDY.  How  far? 

Gen.  COLE.  Well,  10  or  15  miles.  Some  of  them  are  not  so  far 
away  from  the  railroad. 

Mr.  HERNANDEZ.  Could  large  bodies  of  land  be  secured  in  Massa- 
chusetts at  reasonable  prices  for  this  project  ( 

Gen.  COLE.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  they  could. 

Mr.  HERNANDEZ.  As  large  a  body  as  half  a  township,  a  township. 
25,000  acres,  or  100,000  acres  ? 

Gen.  COLE.  Some  of  our  towns  are  larger  than  others,  but  I  think 
it  would  be  a  very  simple  proposition  to  find  land  enough  to  estab- 
lish one  of  these  projects  in  Massachusetts,  so  that  the  cost  of  the 
land  reclaim1  (1  would  be  no  more  in  Massachusetts  than  it  would  be 
in  the  West,  where  they  wanted  water,  or  in  the  swamp  lands,  uhere 
they  wanted  drains. 

Mr.  HERNANDEZ.  My  thought  was  could  they  secure  a  large  enough 
body  of  land  in  one  body,  I  mean? 

Gen.  COLE.  I  think  you  could,  sir.  There  is  much  more  wild  land 
in  Massachusetts  than  you  have  any  idea  of.  Nobody  knew  until 
they  bought  Camp  Devens,  which  is  one  of  the  Army  encampments 
there,  that  there  was  so  much  land  there,  and  they  have  got  a 
tremendous  lot  of  land  right  there  within  35  miles  of  the  city  of 
Boston.  Down  on  the  railroad,  from  Boston  to  Providence,  there 
is  a  tremendous  tract  of  land  down  there  that  is  undeveloped.  In 
the  old  days  I  think  King  Phillip  had  an  Indian  fight  down  there. 
There  is  a  tremendous  tract  down  there  that  could  be  reclaimed. 

Mr.  SNELL.  How  many  acres  are  there  in  Camp  Devins?  Do  you 
know,  General  ? 

Gen.  COLE.  I  am  not  familiar  with  that.  I  was  not  there  when  it 
started. 

Mr.  SNELL.  That  is  going  to  be  kept  as  one  of  our  permanent 
camps? 

Gen.  COLE.  So  the  Chief  of  Staff  told  me ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Is  there  not  land  enough  in  the  vicinity  of  that  if 
they  do  not  need  so-  many  acres  to  be  procured  for  one  of  these  de- 
velopments? 

Gen.  COLE.  The  Government  is  not  going  to  buy  a  certain  part  of 
that  land.  It  had  a  tremendous  amount  under  option.  It  is  not 
going  to  buy  the  part  it  leased  for  artillery  purposes;  that  is  the 
surrounding  land,  and  that  is  a  tremendous  tract  in  itself,  the  sur- 
rounding land,  but  they  are  not  going  to  take  that. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Mr.  Chairman,  has  anyone  here  brought  out  the  fact 
about  the  number  of  acres  which  would  be  necessary  to  make  one  of 
these  community  settlements? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  are  going  to  go  into  that  with  Director  Davis. 

Mr.  SNELL.  That  has  not  been  brought  out  yet? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Not  specifically. 

Mi-.  WHITE.  Is  this  land  you  are  speaking  of  covered  by  a  growth 
of  timber? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  Ill 

(Jen.  COLE.  Partly  so,  and  partly  not  covered. 

Mr.  WHITE.  If  it  was  made  available  for  cultivation  what  would 
be  required?  Would  not  the  timber  have  to  be  removed,  and  is  it 
not  stony  to  some  extent? 

Gen.  COLE.  This  land  that  I  speak  of  between  Boston  and  Provi- 
dence is  more  or  less  swampy  and  would  have  to  be  drained.  The 
land  that  I  speak  of  in  the  western  part  of  the  State  is  at  present 
farming  land,  but  poor  farming  land. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  long  have  you  lived  in  the  State  of  Massa- 
chusetts i 

Gen.  COLE.  Forty-six  years. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  "Have  you  traveled  extensively  through  the  rural 
sections  of  the  State? 

Gen.  COLE.  I  was  once  a  candidate  for  governor  and  as  such  trav- 
eled to  pretty  nearly  all  the  cities  and  towns  of  the  State. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Did  you  have  time  when  you  were  a  candidate  for 
governor  to  talk  to  the  farmers,  or  to  look  at  the  farms? 

Gen.  COLE.  I  had  to  talk  with  farmers. 

Mr.  SNELL.  That  is  the  best  way  in  the  world  to  get  acquainted 
in  the  rural  sections. 

Gen.  COLE.  I  have  been  over  the  State  in  a  horse  and  buggy  when 
other  people  were  running  for  governor,  and  have  been  over  it  an 
automobile  when  running  for  myself. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  General,  you  went  in  the  Army  as  a  private,  and 
you  were  promoted  to  a  brigadier  general.  You  may  have  some 
modesty  about  telling  your  story,  but  I  think  the  committee  would 
be  interested  in  hearing  the  story  of  your  promotion. 

Gen.  COLE.  There  was  not  anything  particular  to  that,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, excepting  that  I  was  promoted.  I  realize,  of  course,  that  I  had 
been  in  the  National  Guard  of  Massachusetts  for  25  years  and  had 
risen  in  there  from  a  private  up  to  adjutant  general,  so  that  it  was 
probably  my  past  experience,  as  much  as  anything  else,  that  brought 
about  the  promotion.  At  the  time  that  the  war  broke  out  I  was  a 
private  citizen  and  was  out  of  the  National  Guard,  and  the  only  way 
T  could  get  back  was  to  enlist  as  a  private. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  As  a  private  did  you  not  have  an  opportunity  to 
hear  the  views  of  privates? 

Gen.  COLE.  Well,  I  was  a  private  over  here  in  Massachusetts,  and 
not  over  there. 

Mr.  SNELL.  They  were  not  discussing  land  matters  very  much  then, 
were  they  ? 

(ion.  COLE.  I  was  not  a  private  very  long. 

Mr.  SNELL.  I  say  they  were  not  discussing  land  matters,  either,  at 
that  time? 

(Jen.  COLE.  No,  sir:  not  at  that  time. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Your  general  impression,  General,  from  your  contact 
with  the  soldiers,  is  that  a  large  proportion  of  them  would  like  to 
nvail  themselves  of  the  opportunity  of  getting  land  under  this  pro- 
posed legislation  ? 

Gen.  COLE.  Yes.  sir:  those  who  are  fit  for  such  work  and  have  an 
inclination  for  such  work. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Personally,  while  coming  over  on  the  boat  recently, 
where  there  were  about  12,000  soldiers,  it  seemed  to  be  a  subject  for 
133319—19 8 


112  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

discussion  a  great  deal,  and  frequently  they  would  come  in  groups  up 
to  my  room  and  talk  over  the  possibilities  in  the  West.  I  thought 
the  sentiment  was  pretty  general  among  them  that  they  wanted  to 
take  advantage  of  any  law  of  this  kind. 

Gen.  COLE.  I  believe  that  if  this  bill  and  its  benefits  were  known 
publicry — I  mean  were  given  such  publicity  that  all  the  soldiers 
would  know  about  it  as  I  know  about  it — that  you  would  be  surprised 
at  the  response  that  you  would  get  from  the  soldiers,  but  there  has 
been  no  publicity  of  this  bill  in  our  section  of  the  country  to  speak 
of  at  all. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Has  there  not  been  publicity  to  the  general  scheme  of 
Secretary  Lane? 

Gen.  COLE.  Very  little  that  reaches  down  to  the  soldiers.  Of 
course,  most  of  the  soldiers  were  away  when  the  publicity,  if  there 
was  any,  took  place. 

Mr.  SXELL.  There  has  been  a  lot  of  publicity  work  on  this  bill 
somewhere,  an  enormous  amount.  Mr.  Lane  says  he  sent  out  ques- 
tionnaires and  received  52,000  or  a  great  many  replies,  so  there  has 
been  an  enormous  amount  of  publicity  work.  I  know. 

Gen.  COLE.  It  probably  took  place  when  most  of  the  men  were  away 
in  France. 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  boys  in  France  seemed  to  know  about  it.  I  spoke 
with  a  number  of  them  over  there  and  they  wanted  to  get  a  home 
under  the  proposed  law. 

Gen.  COLE.  In  regard  to  publicity,  the  bill  appeals  to  me  so  strongly 
that  it  seems  to  me  that  every  man  in  public  life,  in  our  local  legis- 
latures, whether  Democrat  or  Republican,  would  be  advocating  this 
bill  at  every  opportunity  he  had.  Well,  I  do  not  believe  that  they 
know  about  the  bill,  because  anything  in  favor  of  the  soldiers  the)' 
advocate,  and  here  is  something  that  really  gives  an  opportunity 
to  the  soldier,  not  giving  him  a  $100  bonus  because  he  was  in  the 
war  six  months,  but  gives  him  a  chance  to  be  an  independent  citizen 
and  to  be  of  great  service  to  his  country,  and  a  chance  for  himself  to 
move  along. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  General,  what  effect  do  you  think  this  bill  will 
have  on  agricultural  labor? 

Gen.  COLE.  I  can  only  speak  for  my  section.  I  believe  it  will  have 
a  beneficial  effect,  because  the  more  experience  and  more  brains  and 
more  ability  you  get  into  the  agricultural  phase,  the  agricultural 
business,  the  better  they  will  all  be,  and  especially  if  you  are  going 
to  have  the  Government  help  these  men  along,  and  going  to  have 
the  Government  back  them  to  start  with,  and  back  them  in  the  way 
of  telling  them  what  the  latest  things  are.  I  believe  in  Massachu- 
setts we  need  that.  I  am  a  believer  in  the  agricultural  possibilities 
of  Massachusetts  and  of  New  England. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  believe  this  will  have  the  effect  of  reduc- 
ing the  present  supply  of  agricultural  labor  in  your  State,  or  in- 
creasing it? 

Gen.  COLE.  I  do  not  think  so;  I  think  it  will  increase  it.  I  do 
not  think  those  men  would  want  to  go  to  work  at  agricultural  labor 
without  a  future,  unless  they  had  to,  because  agricultural  labor  will 
be,  perhaps,  more  poorly  paid  in  years  to  come  than  it  is  now.  and 
I  do  not  believe  they  would  want  to  work  at  it  unless  they  are 
forced  to  it,  but  they  are  willing  to  go  in  and  do  agricultural  labor 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  113 

at  fair  wages,  provided  they  can  see  something  ahead  of  them,  a 
home  ahead  of  them,  and  that  is  human  nature.  It  is  no  different 
with  soldiers  than  it  is  with  anyone  else,  and  I  believe  it  will  develop 
agriculture  and  modern,  scientific  agriculture  in  Massachusetts.  We 
have  been  sending  money  out  for  years,  investing  in  the  apple  or- 
chards of  Washington  and  Oregon,  and  I  believe  that  the  same 
amount  of  money  spent  in  Massachusetts  would  have  brought  about 
as  good  a  return,  and  we  would  have  just  as  good  apples  as  they 
have  out  in  Washington  and  Oregon,  and  they  have  pretty  good  ones 
out  there  too. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  In  California,  also? 

Gen.  COLE.  This  money  has  gone  more  to  Washington  and  Oregon, 
I  think,  than  to  California,  but  out  there  they  do  business  scientif- 
ically, and  with  modern  methods,  and  they  do  it  on  a  large  scale. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  wish  to  add  anything  more.  General  ? 

Gen.  COLE.  Except  the  last  thing  that  I  wish  strongly  to  bring 
to  your  attention  again.  Mr.  Chairman,  that  if  we  do  not  want  these 
soldiers  to  become  bitter,  we  want  to  steer  their  present  patriotism 
into  the  right  channels,  and  this  bill  gives  them  that  opportunity. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  thank  you  very  much  for  your  statement. 
General; 

Gentlemen,  Mr.  Wilson  of  Louisiana  is  here,  and  I  understand  has 
been  selected  by  his  State  to  make  a  statement  before  the  committee. 
We  will  be  pleased  to  hear  you,  Mr.  Wilson. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  RILEY  J.  WILSON,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN 
CONGRESS  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  LOUISIANA. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  my  delegation,  on  re- 
quest of  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  requested  me  to  appear  be- 
fore the  committee  and  make  a  statement  in  relation  to  the  plans  un- 
der consideration  for  farm  loans  for  our  returning  soldiers,  with  the 
understanding,  of  course,  that  they  were  not  committed  to  a  bill 
which  I  had  introduced,  or  to  any  other  bill  pending  before  the  com- 
mittee. 

I  have  thought  a  great  deal  about  this  question,  and  have  read,  I 
believe,  and  studied  every  bill  and  every  plan  that  I  could  find 
dealing  with  it.  There  is,  in  my  judgment,  no  difference  of  opinion 
as  to  the  advisability  and  desirability  of  some  legislation  that  would 
enable  those  of  our  returning  soldiers  who  desire  to  do  so  to  acquire 
and  own  farms  and  to  engage  in  agricultural  pursuit,  and  any  plan 
that  will  enable  them  to  do  that  and  at  the  same  time  preserve  the 
independent  character  of  our  citizenship,  and  not  place  any  unneces- 
sary burden  upon  the  taxpayers  of  the  country,  I  do  not  believe 
would  meet  with  a  dissenting  voice. 

I  would  like,  if  the  committee  wishes,  to  submit  a  bill  which  I 
have  introduced,  and  the  explanation  of  it  that  I  have  prepared  and 
written. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  is  the  number  of  your  bill,  do  you  know  ? 

Mr.  WILSON.  H.  R.  1254. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Before  what  committee? 

Mr.  WILSON.  This  is  pending  before  the  Banking  and  Currenc}' 
Committee. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  It  is  your  idea  to  put  this  in  the  record? 


114  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  WILSOX.  Yes ;  to  put  it  in  the  hearing  with  the  statement  that 
I  have  attached  to  it.  It  might  take  some  little  time  to  read  and  dis- 
cuss it.  I  will  just  say  in  connection  with  it,  of  course,  that  if  the 
committee  likes,  I  can  read  the  explanation  I  have  prepared  and  put 
that  in,  instead  of  the  statement  I  might  make. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  might  give  a  brief  resume  of  it,  and  without 
objection,  if  you  desire,  it  may  be  incorporated  in  the  record. 

Mr.  WILSOX.  I  have  written  that  resume  of  the  bill.  I  will  say 
this,  that  after  studying  over  all  these  plans,  the  impression  that  I 
Avound  up  with  was  that  the  plan  of  Secretary  Lane,  which  is  em- 
bodied in  the  Mondell  bill  and  a  number  of  other  bills — and  I  under- 
stand these  hearings  are  primarily  on  the  Mondell  bill — 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  is  covering  all  of  them,  is  it  not,  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Covering  all  of  them. 

Mr.  WILSOX  (continuing).  Would  not  enable  all  the  returning  sol- 
diers who  might  desire  to  do  so  to  engage  in  agricultural  pursuits, 
for  the  reason,  as  I  understand  it,  that  the  only  men  who  could  re- 
ceive the  benefits  of  this  measure  would  be  those  who  would  be  will- 
ing to  go  into  the  soldier  settlement  or  reservation  or  colony,  what- 
ever you  might  wish  to  call  it.  I  believe  it  is  true  in  my  State  as 
in  all  other  States,  that  there  are  a  great  many  who  could  not  do 
this;  who  have  attachments  in  the  communities  where  they  have 
been  reared,  from  which  they  went  into  the  war;  left  farms  which 
they  owned  when  they  went  "into  the  war,  or  left  lands  which  they 
might  desire  to  go  back  and  improve  as  a  farm,  and  which  they 
already  own.  There  is  nothing  in  this  plan  that  would  take  care 
of  that  class  of  our  soldiers,  as  I  understand  the  measure,  and  I  have 
studied  it  over  pretty  carefully.  I  would  like  to  leave  the  idea  with 
the  committee  that  if  there  is  some  way  of  doing  that,  in  my  judg- 
ment it  would  improve  this  legislation. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I  introduced  a  bill  that  tends  to  take  care  of  that, 
in  this,  that  there  is  a  stipulation  in  the  bill  I  introduced — I  do  not 
know  whether  it  is  in  the  room  now7  or  not — that  where  a  soldier 
owns  a  farm  valued  at  no  more  than  a  thousand  dollars,  this  law- 
will  apply  to  him  just  the  same  as  the  one  who  did  not  own  a  farm 
at  all. 

Mr.  WILSON.  The  Mondell  bill? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  No,  sir;  we  are  considering  all  the  bills.  Mr.  Chair- 
man, am  I  correct  in  that? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  we  might  take  up  all  the  bills. 

Mr.  WILSON.  It  might  finally  lead  to  some  amendment  to  this  bill. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  are  glad  to  have  any  suggestions,  outside  of 
the  Mondell  bill,  or  the  other  bills. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I  think  I  shall  just  submit  this  statement  and  let  it. 
go  in,  because  the  bill  is  simply  an  enlargement  of  the  powers  of  the 
Farm  Loan  Board,  and  follows  very  much  the  idea  of  the  Canadian 
plan,  which  makes  an  appropriation  and  places  the  administration 
of  it  under  a  board  created  by  the  act. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Your  idea,  Mr.  Wilson,  is  to  furnish  some  assis- 
tance to  the  soldier  who  wants  a  farm  in  a  segregated  community, 
apart  from  the  Government  community? 

Mr.  WILSON.  Yes;  in  such  place  as  he  may  choose  for  his  home. 
May  I  read  this,  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  115 

Mr.  WILSON  (reading)  : 

The  bill  if  (Mulcted  into  law  will  be  administered  by  the  Farm  Loan  Board 
through  its  present  organization  and  machinery.  The  act  therefore  will  not 
create  any  new  offices  or  necessitate  the  employment  of  any  additional  agencies 
nor  will  it  incur  any  additional  expense  for  administrative  purposes. 

Under  the  farm  loan  act  the  amount  loaned  is  limited  to  50  per  cent  of  the 
value  of  the  land  and  20  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  permanent  insured  im- 
provements. This,  of  course,  makes  it  necessary  that  those  acquiring  loan* 
under  this  act  must  already  have  a  substantial  amount  of  capital  either  in  land 
ownership  or  otherwise. 

Now.  under  this  bill  a  concession  is  made  in  favor  of  soldiers,  sailors,  and 
marines  who  have  served  in  the  war  against  Germany,  by  which  loans  may  be 
made  to  them  up  to  the  amount  of  $5,000  in  any  one  case  for  the  full  valuation 
of  the  land  or  the  land  and  permanent-insured  improvements. 

This  loan  may  be  used  either  to  purchase  the  land  or  to  provide  buildings 
and  other  improvements  thereon,  or  to  purchase  live  stock  or  other  equipments 
necessary  to  carry  on  the  farming  operations  or  to  liquidate  existing  indebted- 
ness. The  loan  may  run  for  40  years  at  4  per  cent  interest. 

For  the  first  two  years  the  payments  may  be  deferred.  This  would  give  addi- 
tional opportunity  to  plac  the  land  in  productive  shape. 

These  loans  to  returned  soldiers  will  not  depend  upon  securing  funds  by  the 
sale  of  bonds  issued  against  these  mortgages  but  the  appropriation  will  be  made 
direct.  In  fact  it  is  not  contemplated  or  intended  that  there  shall  be  any  bonds 
issued  against  the  mortgages  given  by  the  soldiers  who  take  advantage  of  this 
act  if  the  bill  is  passed. 

Now.  as  to  the  number  of  returning  soldiers  who  may  desire  to  engage  in 
farming  and  who  will  actually  do  so,  except  those  who  were  already  engaged 
in  that  pursuit  before  entering  the  military  service,  it  is  a  very  uncertain 
proposition. 

.My  own  experience  has  been  that  since  the  war  was  declared  to  be  ended 
each  soldier  is  anxious  to  return  to  his  former  business  or  occupation ;  the 
merchant  to  his  store,  the  banker  to  his  bank,  the  professional  man  to  his  call- 
ing, and  the  boy  who  went  from  the  farm  seeks  to  return  to  either  lands  owned 
by  him  or  to  assist  his  parents  in  caring  for  and  developing  the  farm  from  which 
he  went  into  the  military  service  at  the  call  of  his  country. 

It  is  true,  however,  that  many  a  returning  soldier  will  be  anxious  to  settle 
and  improve  a  farm  for  his  own  home,  and  in  many  instances  there  will  be 
those  who  have  in  view  the  lands  they  would  like  to  purchase  for  the  purpose 
of  making  a  home  and  under  the  provisions  of  this  bill  the  opportunity  will  be 
given  and  in  such  a  way  that  the  soldier  may  select  his  own  land  in  the  com- 
munity and  among  the  neighbors  where  he  desires  to  live  and  improve  and 
develop  it  in  his  own  way,  and  have  a  home  and  farm  according  to  his  own 
plan. 

One  difficulty  about  the  proposed  Government  farm  settlement  proposition  is 
that  after  the  Government  takes  charge  of  a  tract  of  land,  ditches  and  drains 
it,  and  divides  it  into  farms  from  20  to  40  acres,  and  then  sells  it  to  the  soldier 
for  the  original  land  price,  including  the  cost  of  reclamation  and  improvements. 
only  those  soldiers  who  can  secure  the  benelit  of  this  land  are  those  who  desire  to 
go  to  the  Government  reservation  wherever  that  may  be.  But  it  occurs  to  me 
that  if  we  are  going  to  give  the  soldiers  a  preference  and  some  substantial 
assistance  in  becoming  a  home  owner  and  a  farmer,  we  ought  to  have  a  law 
that  will  enable  each  soldier  to  take  advantage  of  its  provisions  at  the  place  and 
in  the  community  in  which  he  desires  to  live. 

Besides  the  soldier  when  he  returns  and  enters  civilian  life  is  going  to  be  just 
like  the  usual  run  of  normal  American  citizens.  He  will  desire  to  have  his  own 
way  about  the  land  he  owns  to  bring  into  play  his  own  initiative,  industry,  and 
enterprise  in  improving  it  and  become  somewhat  an  independent  factor  in  the 
community  where  he  chooses  to  live. 

Under  this  proposed  law  no  money  will  be  used  except  that  which  goes  to  the 
benefit  of  the  soldier  upon  his  own  application,  and  I  believe  all  admit  that  nt 
this  time  we  should  take  some  precautions  to  know  that  money  is  not  going  to 
be  appropriated  and  expended  except  for  necessary  purposes. 

Under  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  the  Government  will  be  taking  practically 
no  chances  for  loss,  but  may  in  a  practical  way  add  in  a  large  degree  to  the 
number  of  independent-home  owners,  and  be  of  material  assistance  to  her  patri- 
otic and  most  deserving  men  who  served  in  the  military  and  naval  forces  of 
the  present  war. 


116  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

I  would  like  to  add  hero  the  chief  provisions  of  the  Canadian  act 
and  an  article  which  is  published  in  the  Literary  Digest  showing  how 
that  has  worked  out.  The  Canadian  act.  in  substance,  reads  this  way  : 

(1)  The  hoard  may  loan  t<>  a  settler  an  amount  not  exceeding  SH. ."ioo  for  any 
of  the  following  purposes : 

(«)  The  acquiring  of  land  for  agricultural  purposes. 

(ft)   The  payment  of  inoumbranres  on  lands  used  for  agricultural  purposes. 

(c)  The  improvement  of  agricultural  land. 

(d)  The  erection  of  farm  buildings.  • 

(c)  The  purchase  of  stock,  machinery,  and  equipment. 
(f)  Such  other  purposes  as  the  board  may  approve. 

(2)  The  money  loaned  shall  he  expended  \inder  the  supervision  of  the  hoard. 

Reading  this  it  occurred  to  me  that  $2,500  is  what  they  might  loan, 
but  I  see  the  board  has  concluded  that  they  might  loan  $7,500.  Of 
course,  they  have  an  advantage  in  Canada  that  we  have  not  here; 
they  have  a  large  area  of  public  agricultural  land,  and  I  understand 
that  our  public-land  area  that  might  be  suitable  to  homestead  is 
limited  to  about  16,000,000  acres.  I  do  not  know  myself  whether  it 
is  good  for  that  purpose,  but  I  would  like  to  add  to  this  a  statement 
as  to  how  this  worked  out  in  Canada.  This  will  set  forth  all  that 
I  desire  to  say  to  the  committee,  except  that  my  delegation  are  favor- 
able to  some  plan  for  the  assistance  of  the  returning  soldiers. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Wilson,  have  you  in  your  own  mind  figured  out  a 
plan  whereby,  under  your  scheme,  it  would  be  workable  in  loaning 
this  money  and  taking  care  of  it  and  taking  care  of  the  payment 
of  the  interest,  and,  supposing  there  are  failures,  taking  back  the 
land  or  selling  it  so  the  Government  would  not  lose  anything?  Have 
you  devised  a  system  whereby  you  could  work  that  out  ? 

Mr.  WILSON*  Yes;  I  have  talked  this  bill  over  with  the  members 
of  the  Farm  Loan  Board,  and  they  say  it  is  entirely  practical  of 
administration  under  their  present  machinery,  and  that  if  Congress 
should  see  fit  to  enact  it  they  would  want  to  make  it  very  definite 
that  the  Farm  Loan  Board  was  acting  as  the  agency  of  the  Gov- 
ernment in  administering  the  fund,  so  as  to  preclude  any  idea  that 
any  bonds  were  issued  upon  this,  because  when  you  loan  up  to  100 
per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  property,  of  course,  that  might  affect  the 
bond  market. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Your  idea  is  to  extend  through  the  farm-loan 
bank  more  liberal  loans  and  terms  to  the  soldier  upon  the  segregated 
unit? 

Mr.  WILSON.  Yes;  to  loan  him  up  to  100  per  cent.  For  instance, 
here  are  80  acres  of  land  that  the  soldier  wants  to  buy,  and  it  is 
worth  $3,000  or  $4,000.  My  idea  is  that  this  shall  be  appraised 
by  the  organization  which  the  Farm  Loan  Board  has  in  every  com- 
munity, and  the  'money  loaned  the  soldier  through  this  fund  to 
purchase  this  property,  or  if  he  already  owns  his  home  and  returns 
to  his  farm  from  the  Army,  he  could  make  this  loan  up  to  the  full 
value  of  his  property,  for  the  purpose  of  supplying  it  with  live  stock 
or  improvements. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  it  your  theory  that  we  would  get  more  on  the  farms 
and  more  improvements  of  the  farms  to  allow  this  separate,  indi- 
vidual selection  than  to  take  :i  large  tract  of  land  that  is  not  being 
use-l  at  all  but  is  valuable,  if  not  more  so  than  that  which  has  been 
used,  and  develop  it  so  that  these  men  might  get  good  home- '. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  117 

Mr.  WILSON.  Do  I  think  we  would  get  more? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I  am  inclined  to  think  so,  Mr.  Raker,  and  I  am  in- 
clined to  think  more  strongly  this,  that  if  you  do  the  one  thing,  that 
is,  take  the  reclamation  project,  that  in  addition  to  that  you  ought 
to  provide  some  way  for  the/man  who  wants  to  select  his  own 
home  in  the  community  where  he  desires  to  live,  and  to  give  him 
some  opportunity  or  make  some  provision  in  his  favor,  as  well  as 
the  man  who  might  want  to  go  onto  this  reclaimed  project. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  it  not  your  idea  in  regard  to  this  legislation— at 
least  it  is  mine — that  the  smaller  tracts  partly  improved  could  be 
better  left  to  individual  effort  and  individual  enterprise  to  subdivide 
and  work  out.  and  the  man  buy  his  place  and  improve  it,  and  to 
leave  these  large  tracts  where  they  are  practically  unused  and  unde- 
veloped to  the  larger  development  which  could  be  done  by  the  Gov- 
ernment, whereby  it  would  put  the  land  under  cultivation  and  at  the 
same  time  give  good  homes  to  our  returning  soldiers?  We  would 
do  a  double  benefit  this  way.  We  would  improve  these  waste  tracts 
and  make  them  valuable,  more  so  than  if  the  person  improved  the 
land. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Well,  in  my  section  of  the  country  the  large  waste 
tracts  are  owned  by  former  timber  operators  or  concerns  that  are 
more  able  to  go  in  and  make  these  experiments  for  themselves  •  and 
develop  this  land  than  the  individual  settler  might  be  to  take  his 
segregated  tract  and  improve  it  and  make  it  a  good  farm. 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  purpose  of  this  legislation  is  to  take  this  kind  of  a 
tract  and  develop  it.  Supposing  here  are  100,000  or  200,000  acres  of 
land  that  have  not  been  used  at  all,  that  has  the  climate  and  good 
soil,  and  all  it  wants  it  to  be  drained  or  irrigated,  as  the  case  might 
be,  and  developed  so  that  it  will  make  improved  farms. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Take  my  section  of  the  country.  There  is  a  vast — I 
will  not  say  vast  area  in  any  one  place,  but  there  is  a  vast  acreage  of 
land  that  is  highly  fertile  and  needs  no  drainage,  but  all  it  needs 
to  make  a  good  farm  is  for  a  good  farmer  to  go  on  it  and  develop 
it.  It  does  not  need  any  reclamation  expenditure  at  all,  and  when 
these  boys  return  to  these  communities  and  they  want  a  farm,  they 
would  no  doubt  be  willing  to  become  farmers  if  they  can  acquire  and 
improve  this  land. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  there  a  large  quantity  of  that  land  that  could  be  ob- 
tained at  a  reasonable  price  for  a  man  to  go  on  and  improve  it? 

Mr.  WILSON.  Yes:  but  you  would  not  find  it  probably  in  large 
bodies,  but  there  is  a  large  acreage  uncultivated  of  very  fine  land. 

I  saw  an  instance  of  just  what  happened  down  in  south  Louisiana 
the  other  day.  where  two  plantations  amounting  to  1.700  acres  were 
taken  up.  and  through  the  assistance  of  the  Farm  Loan  Board,  on  a 
~>0  per  cent  value,  about  20  people  who  did  not  have  any  money,  al- 
though, of  course,  they  were  already  trained  farmers,  acquired  liomes 
there  by  cutting  those  plantations  up  and  selling  them  out  in  tracts  to 
these  individual  owners.  Of  course,  that  is  very  fine  and  verv  fertile 
land. 

Xow,  it  is  a  very  serious  proposition  as  to  just  how  it  is  best  to  ex- 
pend the  money  that  you  are  going  to  give  in  order  to  assist  the 
soldier  to  become  a  farmer.  Under  this  Canadian  act  the  soldier  se- 
lects his  own  land,  and  it  is  shown  there  that  about — I  think  it  is 


118  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

44  per  cent  of  the  returning  soldiers  desired  to  be  fanners,  which  was 
rather  astonishing  to  me,  and  when  it  was  traced  down  it  was  found 
that  74  per  cent  of  that  44  per  cent  had  originally  at  some  time  been 
on  a  farm.  He  might  have  gone  from  the  farm  to  be  a  clerk  in  a 
store  before  he  went  in  the  army,  but  that  was  rather  astonishing^ 
because  I  did  not  believe  so  many  of  them  would  seek  to  return  to- 
agricultural  pursuits. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Your  bill,  Mr.  Wilson,  is  simply  an  amendment  to  the 
farm  loan  act,  to  extend  the  privileges  to  the  soldiers,  without  re- 
quiring them  to  offer  the  same  amount  of  security  that  would  apply 
to  an  ordinary  civilian  ? 

Mr.  WILSON.  It  does  enlarge  the  powers  of  the  Farm  Loan  Board. 

Mr.  SMITH.  You  are  not  antagonistic  to  this  plan;  you  simply 
want  to  supplement  this  bill? 

Mr.  WILSON.  I  do  not  know.  That  would  be  with  the  committee,  as 
to  whether  they  could  supplement  this  plan,  but  I  would  like  to  have 
that  idea  carried  into  the  legislation  somewhere. 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  is  not  true,  Mr.  Wilson,  in  so  many  instance,  and 
will  it  not  be  true  also  of  the  soldier,  that  whore  he  makes  his  indi- 
vidual purchase,  or  tries  to  make  his  individual  purchase,  he  will 
generally  have  to  do  it  through  a  real  estate  agent,  and  he  will  make 
the  price  so  high  and  desire  to  make  such  a  profit  that  he  will  not  be 
able  to  get  hold  if  the  land  at  a  reasonable  price  by  himself  and  handle 
it  and  farm  it  and  make  a  profit  out  of  it? 

Mr.  WILSON.  This  is  an  individual  proposition,  you  know.  He 
does  not  have  to  go  to  any  real  estate  agent.  I  do  not  know  whether 
you  can  just  appreciate  that  in  certain  sections  of  the  country  an  in- 
dividual can  go  out  and  find  land.  They  are  continually  coming  into 
my  district,  and.,  for  instance,  from  over  in  Mr.  Johnson's  State,  in 
Mississippi.  I  do  not  know  whether  they  come  from  his  district  or 
not,  but  I  think  I  could  probably  go  and  locate  a  thousand 
within  two  or  three  parishes,  a-  we  call  them  in  Louisiana, 
that  have  come  over  there  and  purchased  land — 80  or  100  acre 
tracts — and  converted  them  into  homes  and  farms,  and  there  is 
plenty  of  that  kind  of  property.  Then,  of  course,  I  realize  that  in 
Louisiana,  and  probably  in  Mississippi,  the  time  is  coining,  and  has 
now  arrived,  when  many  large  planting  operations  ought  to  be  sub- 
divided and  sold  to  independent  home  owners. 

Mr.  GANDY.  If  both  of  these  plans  should  be  enacted  into  law 
they  are  not  in  anyway  antagonistic? 

Mr.  WILSON.  Absolutely  not:  but  I  do  not  believe  a  great  manv 
people  will  ever  be  satisfied,  or  that  the  soldiers  will  be  satisfied  with 
legislation  that  only  furnishes  an  opportunity  to  those  who  desire  to 
be  colonized  and  placed  in  some  Government  reservation,  probably 
far  distant  from  their  homes. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  It  will  be  in  his  own  State  probably. 

Mr.  WILSON.  There  are  certain  sections  of  the  same  State  that 
there  is  absolutely  as  much  difference  between  as  there  is  between 
territories  that  are  thousands  of  miles  apart. 

Mr.  HKKSM  MAN.  These  two  plans  seem  to  be  based  on  different 
theories,  in  «>  far  as  the  Mondell  bill  provided  there  shall  be  a  pay- 
ment not  only  on  the  land  of  .">  pel-  cent,  but  all  advances  of  40  per 
cent.  Your  proposition  provides  that  the  Government  will  advance 
100  per  cent  on  the  land. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  119 

Mr.  WILSON.  Of  the  value  of  the  security  that  he  offers;  yes. 

Mr.  HERSHMAN.  Which  do  you  think  is  wiser?  Do  you  think  it  is 
wiser  to  advance  100  per  cent  ? 

Mr.  WILSON.  They  exact  10  per  cent  in  Canada,  but  if  the  soldier 
has  not  the  10  per  cent,  the}7  arrange  in  some  way  to  get  him  on  the 
land  anyway. 

Mr.  HERSHMAN.  Do  you  not  think  a  soldier  that  really  is  capable 
of  making  a  success  of  a  proposition  like  this,  and  especially  one  that 
is  capable  of  making  a  success  as  a  farmer,  could  secure  on  the  maxi- 
mum of  $5,000  which  you  suggest,  $250,  or  5  per  cent  of  it,  so  he  could 
make  that  payment? 

Mr.  WILSON.  If  you  thought  it  wiser  to  have  him  make  a  certain 
payment  in  advance,  that  would  not  be  objectionable  at  all. 

Mr.  HERSHMAN.  Don't  you  think  that  the  soldier  in  the  past  year 
and  a  half  has  come  to  know  how  to  take  chances? 

Mr.  WILSON.  My  judgment  is  that  they  are  going  to  come  back 
here  with  a  new  spirit  and  feeling  of  self-reliance,  and  instead  of 
becoming  wards  of  the  Government,  the  rest  of  us  are  going  to  have 
to  take  a  new  step  to  keep  up  with  the  soldier  when  he  gets  started. 

1  have  no  idea  about  me  boys  being  in  anyway  unable  to  take  care 
of  themselves,  and  the  10  per  cent  payment  or  5  per  cent  payment 
on  the  land  in  advance,  which  is  being  considered  before  this  com- 
mittee, might  help  it.  I  imagine,  though,  usually  it  is  10  per  cent. 
I  know  that  is  the  advance  they  get  up  in  Canada. 

Mr.  HERSHMAN.  It  seems  to  me  it  would  be  a  very-wise  provision, 
because  the  man  who  can  make  a  success  of  one  of  these  enterprises 
can  get  that  amount  of  money  together  in  a  reasonable  length  of  time. 

Mr.  WILSON.  This  bill  has  had  a  good  deal  of  publicity  since  I  in- 
troduced it,  and  I  have  had  a  great  many  letters  from  prominent 
citizens  indorsing  the  idea  of  it,  and  they  would  like  to  retain  the 
soldier  settler  in  the  settlement  or  community  in  which  he  now  lives. 
I  know  I  would  like  to  retain  all  those  in  my  district  that  want  to 
go  into  a  farming  operation,  and  I  know  we  all  feel  that  way  about  it. 

I  will  publish  in  connection  with  my  remarks  the  experience  they 
have  had  in  Canada,  as  it  will  not  take  very  much  space. 
(The  matter  referred  to  is  as  follows:) 

TRANSFORMING    VIUIITKKS    INTO    FAK.MKIIS. 

Almost  44  i>er  cent  of  the  <  ';in!i<!i;m  Expeditionary  Forces,  while  still  overseas, 
voted  in  favor  of  farming  as  a  career  a  Tier  demobilization.  It  had  been  re- 
ported in  some  quarters  that  when  the  men  actually  were  discharged  the  ma- 
jority showed  little  inclination  to  farm,  but  the  Saskatoon  Hxenix  points  out 
that  up  to  the  end  of  February  the  soldier  settlement  board  had  approved  loans 
amounting  to  $1.668.105  to  1,218  returned  men  who  had  taken  up  homestead 
land.  Provincial  offices  of  the  soldier  settlement  board,  we  are  told,  are 
receiving  hundreds  of  new  applications  weekly,  and  the  offices  are  working  day 
and  night  to  keep  abreast  of  the  demand  for  land  loans.  Far  from  being  a 
failure,  the  Canadian  Government's  farm  plan  is  declared  by  those  who  know 
the  situation  to  be  a  pronounced  success.  Canada's  ivestablishnient  of  her 
tight  ing  men  in  civilian  life  by  throwing  open  a  career  to  them  as  farmers 
should  have  especial  interest  for  Americans.  .Many  of  our  o\vn  men  are  shaping 
their  course  toward  the  land,  and  the  project  of  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
Franklin  K.  Lane  has  already  been  recorded  in  these  pages.  The  Saskatoon 
I'luenix  admits  that  not  all  the  returned  men  who  left  the  farm  will  go  back 
to  it.  There  are  constant  changes.  The  lure  of  the  city  is  strong  for  many. 
and  a  war  was  not  necessary  to  start  a  movement  to  the  big  towns  and  the 


120  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

bright  lights.  What  is  important  to  notice,  however,  is  that  not  only  many 
farmers  and  farmers'  sons  who  left  the  land  to  enlist  are  going  back  to  it. 
but  many  others  who  had  moved  to  the  city  before  the  war  are  taking  this 
opportunity  to  get  financial  aid  to  buy  land  and  farm  equipment  for  themselves. 
Yet,  the  value  of  the  scheme,  the  Phoenix  goes  on  to  say,  depends  not  so  much 
on  the  numbers  who  take  up  land  as  on  the  quality  of  the  individual  soldier 
settler.  Supervision  by  experts  and  advisers  of  the  board  continues  after  the 
settler  is  on  his  farm,  and  every  effort  is  exerted  to  see  that  he  has  the  fullest 
op]>ortunity  to  make  good. 

Of  the  44  per  cent  of  Canadian  soldiers  who  expressed  a  desire  to  be  farmers, 
we  learn  from  the  London  Graphic.  74  per  cent  had  had  previous  agricultural 
experience,  although  only  about  40  per  cent  of  these  were  actively  engaged  in 
farming  at  the  time  of  enlistment.  That  the  Canadian  Government  has  gone 
about  this  enterprise  thoroughly  is  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  a  number  of  train- 
ing farms  have  been  established  in  Great  Britain,  where  the  men  receive  in- 
structions iu  farming  under  Canadian  conditions.  The  courses  here  are  de- 
signed to  teach  inexperienced  men  the  everyday  operations  of  the  farm  rather 
than  the  scientific  principles  underlying  agriculture.  In  the  Canadian  prov- 
inces, moreover,  classes  have  been  opened  at  the  convalescent  homes  to  teach 
farming,  and  the  Graphic  tells  us  that  the  fields  are  the  classrooms,  and  "to 
see  a  big  thrasher  or  tractor  halted  midfield  surrounded  by  an  intent  body  of 
soldier  students  is  a  familiar  sight  in  such  localities."  While  the  soldier  has 
the  right  to  select  his  own  land,  he  has  the  advice  of  the  best  land  experts 
in  the  Dominion  in  making  his  selection.  The  price  is  subject  to  the  supervision 
of  the  soldier  settlement  hoard,  and  it  is  to  be  noted  that  in  all  cases,  before  the 
assistance  of  the  board  in  the  purchase  can  be  obtained,  the  soldier  must  pass 
a  qualification  council  which  determines  whether  the  applicant  is  reasonably 
certain  to  succeed  as  a  farmer.  We  read  then : 

"The  soldier  is  asked  to  pay  10  per  cent  of  the  purchase  price  in  cash,  this 
being  a  stake  to  keep  him  at  his  enterprise.  Not  more  than  $4.500  must  be  left 
owing  to  the  board  at  the  time  of  the  sale.  Provision  has  been  made,  however, 
to  rover  the  case  of  men  who  may  not  be  able  to  pay  the  10  per  cent  but  who 
have  had  already  successful  farming  experience  in  Canada.  In  these  cases, 
either  part  or  the  whole  of  the  10  per  cent  may  be  dispensed  with.  The  in- 
terest on  the  balance,  repayable  on  the  amortization  plan  by  25  annual  install- 
ments, is  5  per  cent. 

"The  Soldiers'  Settlement  Board  is  also  given  authority  to  provide  the 
soldier  with  stock  and  implements  up  to  the  maximum  value  of  $'-!.<H)0. 
Should  a  soldier  possess  stork  and  implements  but  no  rash,  this  matter  can  be 
adjusted  with  the  board.  The  money  advanced  for  implements  and  stock  is 
to  be  repayable  in  four  annual  installments,  commencing  in  the  third  year, 
there  being  no  interest  charged  thereon  for  the  first  two  years.  Further  assist- 
ance may  be  given  the  settler  by  way  of  an  advance  up  to  $1.000  for  permanent 
improvements,  including  the  value  of  building  material  supplied.  This  advance 
is  repayable  on  the  same  terms  as  the  balance  owing  on  the  land.  As  long  as 
amounts  owing  to  the  Settlement  Board  remain  unpaid  the  lands  and  goods  sup- 
plied are  protected  from  seizure  to  the  prejudice  of  the  board,  and  no  sales  or 
charges  can  be  made  without  the  consent  of  the  board.  The  crops  grown  are 
also  protected  from  seizure  to  the  extent  of  the  obligations  due  the  board." 

It  is  not  intended  by  any  means,  we  read  further,  to  encourage  the  soldier- 
settler  to  take  up  more  land  than  lie  can  handle,  nor  to  borrow  up  to  the  maxi- 
mum except  when  it  is  evident  that  he  can  make  good.  When  the  soldier  has 
purchased  his  land  he  will  have  the  supervision  and  advice  of  a  land  adminis- 
trator of  long  experience,  whose  chief  object  is  to  see  that  the  overhead  expenses 
are  in  proportion  to  the  productive  qualities  of  the  land.  The  Graphic  proceeds  : 

"  Inexperienced  men  who  wisli  to  go  on  the  land,  but  who  are  not  judged  by 
the  board  at  present  as  a  reasonable  risk,  will  be  offered  two  plans  under  which 
to  qualify,  the  choice  being  optional.  They  may  gain  experience  by  working 
with  successful  farmers,  or  may  take  a  course  at  some  of  the  agricultural  col- 
leges. Care  will  be  taken  to  place  men  who  wish  to  learn  on  farms  with  pro- 
gressive farmers  who  are  prepared  to  render  public-spirited  service  in  this 
connection.  A  follow-up  scheme  is  being  inaugurated  witli  the  cooperation  of 
nrovincial  agricultural  departments  whereby  men  will  be  advised  and  instructed 
after  they  go  on  the  land.  Short  local  courses  will  be  provided  dealing  with 
Hie  more  advanced  phases  of  instruction,  ruder  the  soldiers'  sell  lenient  scheme 
as  now  being  carried  into  effect  the  soldiers  will  not  be  settled  in  separate  <-om- 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  121 

immities,  but  scattered  throughout  the  province,  wherever  suitable  land  is  found 
available,  in  settled  communities  close  to  railways,  preferably  in  mixed  farming 
districts." 

The  Toronto  Globe  informs  us  that  the  Soldiers'  Settlement  Board  has  taken 
"a  very  practical  step"  to  enable  soldiers  to  engage  in  farming,  by  arranging 
with  a  number  of  the  leading  agricultural  implement  firms  in  Canada  to  give 
soldier-settlers  reduced  prices  on  implements,  wagons,  harness,  blankets,  etc. 
It  also  proposes  to  make  similar  arrangements  with  other  manufacturers  and 
with  second-hand  dealers.  From  the  Globe  we  learn  further  that  the  board  has 
the  power  to  advance  to  a  soldier  $7,500  on  the  purchase  of  land,  live  stock, 
buildings,  and  equipment.  In  Manitoba  by  March  1,  1,216  men  had  been  assisted 
with  loans  averaging  $1,400.  making  in  the  aggregate  more  than  $1,500.000. 
What  farming  opportunities  are  in  Canada  may  be  gathered  from  a  statement  of 
Sir  Robert  Borden,  the  Prime  Minister,  who  calls  Canada's  "  first  great  asset " 
her  "  enormous  area  of  fertile  land."  of  which  only  a  fraction  has  been  brought 
under  cultivation,  and  he  proceeds : 

"  During  the  past  three  years,  under  the  stimulus  of  war  conditions,  the  land 
under  cultivated  crops  has'been  increased  by  6,000,000  acres,  and  it  is  anticipated 
that  this  enlarged  area  will  be  maintained  and  advanced.  Within  the  past  four 
years  the  number  of  cattle  in  Canada  has  increased  by  more  than  40  per  cent 
horses  by  :>.">  per  cent,  hogs  by  more  than  20  per  cent,  and  sheep  by  more  than 
in  per  cent. 

"  Careful  provision  for  the  settlement  on  land  of  men  who  have  served  in  the 
Canadian  and  Allied  armies  has  been  arranged  by  legislative  enactment.  The 
assistance  proposed  is  of  a  liberal  character,  and  the  success  which  has  attended 
the  proposals  in  their  early  operation  gives  promise  of  excellent  permanent 
results." 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  ARTHUR  P.  DAVIS,  DIRECTOR  OF  THE 
RECLAMATION  SERVICE. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen,  I  will  introduce  to  you  Director  Davis, 
of  the  Reclamation  Service,  who  will  make  a  statement. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  Con- 
gress placed  in  the  last  sundry  civil  bill,  which  was  approved  on 
the  1st  day  of  July.  1918,  a  paragraph  providing  for  the  appropria- 
tion of  $100,000  for  the  investigation  by  the  Reclamation  Service  of 
the  feasibility  and  cost  of  reclaiming  lands  needing  drainage,  and 
cut-over  lands.  In  addition  to  that  there  was  an  appropriation  in 
the  regular  reclamation  appropriation  of  $100,000  for  the  investiga- 
tion of  irrigation  projects  in  the  IT  western  States.  The  latter  is 
a  part  of  the  regular  appropriation  which  has  been  made  in  small 
or  similar  amounts  for  some  years,  and  the  two  together  constituted 
a  fund  of  $200,000,  available  for  expenditure  in  the  country  at  large, 
one-half  available  for  only  17  western  States,  and  the  other  half  of  it 
available  all  over  the  country. 

The  investigation  was  organized  in  August  with  three  districts. 
The  IT  States  enumerated  in  the  reclamation  law  constituting  one 
district  was  placed  under  the  charge  of  the  Chief  of  Construction, 
who  had  already  charge  of  the  reclamation  work  in  the  west,  and 
the  rest  of  the  counrty  was"  divided  into  two  parts  which  you  will 
readily  recognize  when  I  denominate  them  the  north  and  the  south, 
so  that  the  north,  south,  and  the  west  constitute  the  three  districts 
known  as  such  to  every  American.  The  western  district  was  inves- 
tigated by  F.  W.  Hanna,  and  the  southern  by  H.  T.  Cory. 

Those  appropriations  are  practically  all  expended.  The  irriga- 
tion work  applying  to  the  IT  western  States  has  been  in  progress, 
as  you  know,  for  IT  years  nearly,  and  the  investigations  have  gone 
along  somewhat  ahead  of  the  construction  work,  so  that  we  now 
have  the  knowledge  by  which  we  can  readily  and  quickly  begin  a 


122  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

number  of  projects  in  that  part  of  the  country  upon  the  availability 
of  funds  under  House  resolution  487,  known  as  the  Mondell  bill. 

In  the  north  and  the  south  the  area  to  be  covered  and  the  small 
amount  of  the  appropriation  enabled  us  only  to  do  reconnaissance 
work  and  find  out  where  opportunities  are,  and  some  of  the  solutions 
concerning  those  opportunities.  It  was  not  feasible  to  carry  on 
detailed  investigation  in  all  the  States.  We  got  into  most  of  them, 
and  of  the  States  that  we  did  enter  we  find  possibilities  in  most  of 
them,  very  attractive  possibilities. 

I  can  verify  the  statement  made  by  Gen.  Cole  this  morning  regard- 
ing possibilities  in  Massachusetts.  We  there  investigated  only  super- 
ficially, but  sufficient  to  know  there  are  several  projects  that  under 
this  bill  would  be  attractive  and  feasible  for  colonization  under  thu 
provisions  of  the  bill.  One  of  those  projects  is  somewhere  about 
15,000  acres  now  in  one  ownership,  that  has  been  acquired  by  the 
purchase  of  small  tracts  by  a  company  intending  to  carry  out  a 
colonization  project,  but  they  have  been  unable  to  finance  it  prop- 
erly, and  are  willing  to  sell  at  about  cost,  which  I  understand  aver- 
ages about  $8  an  acre.  That  is  excellent  land. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Where  is  that  project? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  is  about  25  miles  south  of  Boston,  if  I  remember 
the  distance,  near  Buzzards  Bay.  It  is  partially  covered  with  brush, 
with  practically  no  merchantable  timber  on  it,  and  only  a  small  part 
of  it  has  been  under  cultivation.  The  merchantable  timber  has  been 
cut  away.  A  part  of  it,  but  not  a  large  part,  is  swampy,  but  it  will 
lend  itself  well  to  drainage.  The  topography  is  almost  ideal.  It  is 
not  perfectly  smooth,  but  slightly  rolling,  and  can  be  reduced  to  cul- 
tivation. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  would  be  the  initial  cost  of  a  tract  located  as 
that  is? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  initial  cost,  as  I  understand  it,  would  be  about  $8 
an  acre. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  say  it  is  about  25  miles  from  Boston? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes. 

Mr.  SMITH.  What  would  be  the  cost  of  reclaiming  it? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  believe  it  can  be  reclaimed  at  an  average  of  probably 
$50  per  acre.  It  will  require,  as  I  say,  some  drainage  and  some  level- 
ing. Nearly  all  of  it  will  require  clearing,  because  there  are  old 
stumps,  and  the  small  stumps  of  the  growing  brush.  The  timber 
that  is  there  would  be  valuable  only  for  fuel  and  fences;  it  is  not 
what  is  known  as  merchantable  timber.  There  is  another  tract  nearer 
Boston. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  the  name  of  that  tract  you  just  refer- 
red to? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  know  of  no  name  for  it.  They  may  have  given  it 
some  colony  name  that  I  dp  not  know  of. 

There  is  another  tract  within  about  12  miles  of  Boston  containing 
between  eight  and  nine  thousand  acres,  that  is  swampy,  but  from 
reconnaissance  examination  I  believe  it  feasible  of  reclamation,  and 
will  make  an  excellent  trucking  farm  to  be  carried  on  by  intensive 
cultivation  for  supplying  the  Boston  market. 

We  saw  an  attractive  looking  tract  in  New  Hampshire.  There  aro 
others  in  western  Massachusetts  that  we  know  less  about,  but  re- 
ported favorably. 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  123 

We  know  of  an  attractive  tract  in  Pennsylvania,  and  quite  a  num- 
>)er  in  the  State  of  New  York:  In  Greene  County,  N.  Y..  there 
is  a  tract  that  I  had  better  describe  as  being  typical  of  others 
that  can  probably  be  found  in  other  parts  of  the  northeast,  where 
the  settlement  is  supposed  to  be  rather  dense. 

Xot  far  from  Albany,  in  the  Hudson  Valley,  is  an  area  of  eighteen 
or  twenty  thousand  acres,  already  in  farms,  and  with  farm  buildings. 
The  farms  are  usually  from  154  to  400  acres,  and  most  of  them  are 
under  cultivation  but  the  majority  are  farmed  by  tenants.  The  great 
majority  of  the  farms  in  the  group  I  speak  of  are  listed  for  sale,  and 
I  should  say  that  the  majority  of  the  farms  that  are  offered  for  sale 
could,  at  the  time  1  look,  last  December,  be  purchased  at  less  than 
the  present  value  of  the  improvements. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Where  are  these  lands? 

Mr.  DAMS.  Greene  County,  N.  Y.  There  are  some  farms  in 
the  group  that  are  not  for  sale,  and  some  of  those  that  are  listed  for 
sale  on  which  I  think  the  price  is  higher  than  I  would  care  to  pay 
for  this  pui-pose,  but  a  sufficient  number  could  be  obtained  at  a  very 
low  price  to  justify  the  establishment  of  a  colony,  in  my  opinion, 
unless  they  have  been  sold  since  I  saw  them. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  is  the  reason  for  the  excessive  low  price,  that 
the  land  has  been  worn  out  and  has  to  be  revived  by  clover? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  To  some  extent  that  is  the  cause,  but  I  think  the  proba- 
bilities  arc  that  to  a  greater  extent  the  explanation  given  me  is  the 
correct  one,  and  it  looks  like  an  anomaly  when  first  stated,  that  is, 
that  the  region  fell  into  practical  neglect  on  account  of  its  extreme 
prosperity.  The  farmers  there  with  their  families  were  so  prosperous 
that  they  sent  their  children  practically  all  to  college,  and  in  the  col- 
lege training  they  got  they  achieved  a  liking  for  city  life,  professional 
life,  and  qualified  therefor,  and  went  into  such  callings,  leaving  the 
old  folks  on  the  place,  and  some  of  them  have  followed  the  children  to 
the  city,  and  some  of  them  have  died,  and  others  are  still  on  the 
place  and  are  homesick,  but  in  the  majority  of  cases  the  place  drifted 
into  the  hands  of  tenants.  If  anybody  knows  what  it  is  to  live  in 
the  city  and  try  to  farm  100  miles  away  through  a  tenant,  he  knows 
it  is  not  a  paying  proposition.  The  tenants  neglect  the  farms. 

Mr.  WHITE.  What  period  in  the  past  did  those  conditions  obtain 
ihat  you  speak  of? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  do  not  know  the  exact  period.  I  was  told  by  a  State 
official  that  that  was  the  chief  explanation,  and  occurred  from  10  to 
15  years  ago,  I  take  it,  from  the  account  I  have.  It  is,  however,  an 
excellent  farming  region,  as  shown  by  the  success  of  the  farms  there 
that  are  still  farmed,  and  those  that  have  been  neglected,  or  need 
some  building  up.  I  think  too,  with  some  exceptions,  there  is  some 
drainage  needed,  some  of  the  natural  drains  should  be  opened  up, 
but  only  a  small  per  cent  needs  drainage.  Some  needs  clearing, 
which  has  been  neglected  to  some  extent,  and  a  portion  of  it  has 
grown  up  to  brush. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  How  far  is  that  from  Albany? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  it  will  average  about  25  miles.  It  stretches  up 
and  down  the  river  valley  for  8  or  10  miles. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Is  it  bottom  land  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  is  not  the  lowest  land  next  to  the  river.  It  is  back  a 
short  distance.  There  is  a  little  ridge  that  runs  between  the  river 


124  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

<md  this  land,  although  there  is  connection  with  the  river  bottom. 
There  is  a  railroad  right  down  through  the  tract. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Would  a  question  interrupt  you  right  there?  Before 
you  get  out  of  Boston,  Mass.,  and  New  York,  and  New  Hampshire 
land,  would  the  size  of  those  tracts  enter  into  the  question  as  to  the 
overhead  charges  of  taking  hold  of  those  and  putting  them  in  shape 
for  resale  or  homestead  by  the  beneficiaries  of  the  proposed  legisla- 
tion? Would  not  the  overhead  charge  be  more  than  would  justify 
the  handling  of  this  kind  of  tracts  of  land? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  would  depend  upon  the  size,  and  that  is  one  of  the 
chief  reasons  why  we  do  not  propose  to  take  up  single  farms,  but 
where  a  group  can  be  obtained,  reasonably  contiguous  so  that  they 
can  be  supervised  together,  and  so  that  some  system  of  cooperation 
can  be  carried  out,  that  would  have  an  influence  in  the  economical 
handling  of  these  farms  and  placing  them  in  shape  for  the  soldiers. 
The  overhead  charge  would  be,  roughly,  in  inverse  proportion  to  tha. 
size  of  the  tract,  and  for  that  reason  we  consider  it  not  economical  to 
handle  a  tract  less  than  sufficient  to  support  about  100  families. 

Mr.  TILLMAN.  Is  this  land  on  the  west  side  of  the  Hudson? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SMITH.  What  size  farms  do  you  contemplate  offering  these 
Eastern  States  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  will  depend  very  much  on  circumstances,  on  the 
character  of  land,  and  location  as  to  transportation,  and  the  char- 
acter of  crops  which  it  can  grow.  The  small  region  of  swamp  land 
that  I  mentioned  near  Boston  could  probably  be  divided  into  tracts 
of  10  or  20  acres  and  used  for  trucking  purposes,  or  a  portion  of  it 
might.  But  the  other  tract  in  the  same  Stale  would  undoubtedly 
require  larger  acreages,  and  I  think  usually  from  50  to  100  acres. 

In  the  western  part  of  Massachusetts,  where  some  hilly  land  has 
been  examined,  probably  tracts  as  high  as  160  acres  would  be  neces- 
sary, where  30  or  40  acres  of  excellent  cultivated  land  could  be  gotten 
on  the  tract,  and  the  rest  of  it  put  to  grass,  being  somewhat  hilly 
and  rocky,  but  well  adapted  to  grazing  and  even  to  meadow  purposes 
in  parts  of  it. 

The  examination  extended  into  the  Southern  States,  and  we  find 
there  large  opportunities  in  both  swamp  and  cut-over  lands,  and  in 
some  cases  where  both  drainage  and  clearing  is  necessary.  The  op- 
portunities there  are  so  wide  and  so  well  known  that  it  is  hardly 
necessary  to  go  into  an  extended  description,  but  they  are  in  great 
variety,  so  that  it  will  be  advisable,  in  my  opinion,  to  buy  the  tracts 
that  can  be  most  economically  developed,'  and  they  are  astonishingly 
cheap.  Large  areas  that  appeared  to  be  attractive  and  have  good 
transportation  facilities,  can  be  purchased  at  from  four  to  ten  dollars 
per  acre.  They  need  clearing,  of  course,  and  in  some  cases  need 
drainage. 

The  Lake  States  provide  vast  opportunities,  also  Michigan,  Wis- 
consin, and  Minnesota,  and  they  are  of  similar  character  1o  those 
in  the  South.  They  are  a  division  of  swamp  and  cut-over  lands. 
The  area  of  both  is  very  great,  and  the  liberty  of  choice  is  very 
wide,  and  the  acreage  charge  is  very  low.  similar  to  that  mentioned 
in  the  South. 

We  did  not  have  an  opportunity  to  examine  in  detail  into  the  lands 
in  the  Missippi  Valley,  but  we  have  general  information,  obtained 


HOMES  FOB  SOLDIERS.  125 

by  correspondence,  and  by  talks  with  people  who  are  acquainted 
with  the  conditions,  and  I  feel  confident  that  we  can  obtain  attrac- 
tive and  feasible  projects  in  all,  or  nearly  all,  of  those  States. 

I  omitted  to  mention  that  there  are  very  attractive  and  very  ex- 
tensive opportunities  in  the  State  of  Maine,  and  while  we  did  not 
make  a  detailed  examination  there,  we  have  sufficient  information 
to  know  that  the  opportunities  there  are  nearly  as  varied  and  ex- 
tensive in  proportion  to  area  as  they  are  in  the  South  and  in  the 
Lake  States. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Before  you  leave  the  southern  part  of  the  country, 
did  you  make  an  investigation  of  the  Virginia  lands? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  did  you  find  there? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  We  find  a  great  variety  there.  Along  the  coast  there 
are  immense  areas  that  can  be  cleared  and  drained  where  they  un- 
doubtedly would  be  fertile.  Further  inland,  in  the  Piedmont  region, 
there  are  some  regions  similar  to  the  ones  I  described  in  New  York, 
that  I  think,  for  a  first  beginning,  are  probably  more  attractive  for 
soldier  settlement,  that  is  places  that  have  been  in  the  past  in  a 
state  of  high  cultivation,  that  were  depopulated  largely  as  the  result 
of  the  Civil  War.  when  many  of  the  young  soldiers  went  West  and  the 
old  people  drifted  to  town  or  died.  'There  are  many  opportunities  of 
that  kind  to-day  in  Virginia  and  Maryland.  They  all  need  clearing, 
because  they  have  grown  up  to  brush  since  they  have  been  aban- 
doned. Some  have  trees,  30  or  40  years  old,  on  them,  some  of  which 
would  be  available  for  paper  pulp  purposes,  and  a  little  of  it  might 
be  rated  as  merchantable. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Have  you  found  this  cut-over  land,  or  land  which 
was  cultivated  40  or  60  years  ago,  in  large  enough  tracts  to  make  a 
project  by  the  department  feasible  and  economical? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  We  think  so.  There  are  not  many  tracts  large  enough 
in  one  ownership  of  that  character  of  land  as  there  are  of  swamp 
and  cut-over  lands  on  the  coast,  but  there  is  one  large  tract  of  such 
land  in  one  ownership  in  Maryland  that  is  for  sale,  and  can  prob- 
ably be  purchased  reasonably — I  do  not  know  exactly  at  what  price, 
but  the  lands  around  I  know  are  cheap,  and  in  Virginia  there  are 
a  sufficient  number  of  contiguous  tracts,  which  can  be  had  at  reason- 
able prices,  to  form  a  colony  of,  say,  from  eight  to  twenty  thousand 
acres,  which  would  be  of  sufficient  size  to  locate  a  colony. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Did  you  go  into  the  question  of  the  comparative  ex- 
pense of  reclaiming  that  land  in  Virginia,  south  of  Washington? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Compared  with  what? 

Mr.  RAKER.  As  to  what  it  would  reap  in  reward  for  the  amount 
invested. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes.  Those  tracts  can  be  reclaimed  more  cheaply  than 
the  swamp  and  cut-over  areas  near  the  coast,  because  the  timber  is 
young  and  the  stumps  can  be  pulled  more  cheaply,  and  some  of  the 
timber  can  be  used  for  fuel  and  pulp  wood.  We  can  only  con- 
clude what  would  be  a  reasonable  price,  but  in  order  to  get  definite 
figures  we  would  have  to  go  into  each  individual  tract  in  detail,  and 
we  have  not  done  that  sufficiently  at  this  time. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  heard  Mr.  Wilson's  statement.  What 
has  been  the  result  of  your  investigation  in  Louisiana? 


126  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Louisiana  is  the  State  that  I  should  place  second  in 
the  list  of  all  those  on  the  coast  which  have  the  most  extensive 
opportunities.  In  Louisiana  there  are  both  swamp  and  cut-over 
lands.  Undoubtedly  there  are  some  farms  of  the  character  of  which 
Mr.  Wilson  speaks.  It  is  very  easy  to  find  a  large  area  in  one  owner- 
ship, or  in  two  ownerships,  where  colonies  of  from  500  to  1,000 
families  can  be  located,  with  all  the  advantages  needed  for  success- 
ful settlement.  In  some  cases  both  drainage  and  clearing  is  re- 
quired, and  in  other  cases  only  clearing.  The  swamp  lands  are  very 
extensive;  some  of  the  land  is  prairie  land:  most  of  it  is  timberland. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Have  you  made  any  estimate  of  the  cost  of  clearing 
cut-over  land? 

Mi-.  DAVIS.  We  have  made  numerous  estimates  and  it  runs  through 
u  very  wide  gamut,  all  the  way  from  a  trivial  sum  to  total  impracti- 
cability. As  an  extreme  example,  there  arc  large  areas  of  cut-over 
land  in  the  Northwest,  especially  in  the  Puget  Sound  region,  in 
western  Oregon  and  in  northwestern  California,  which  is  very 
good  farm  land.  The  merchantable  timber  has  been  taken  off.  but 
the  great  majority  of  it  is  infeasible  for  reclamation,  costing  as  high 
as  $500  an  acre,  on  account  of  the  size  and  depth  of  the  tree  roots, 
and  it  would  require  a  great  deal  of  leveling.  Altogether,  they  are 
areas  that  we  know  to  be  infeasible  of  reclamation  on  account  of  the 
cost. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  the  cost  is  prohibitive  you  would  not  take  up  a 
project? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No,  sir ;  if  the  cost  is  prohibitive,  of  course,  we  would 
not  undertake  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  did  you  find  in  Michigan  in  the  cut-over  land? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  There  are  vast  areas  that  appear  to  be  feasible  in  Michi- 
gan, and  also  in  Wisconsin  and  Minnesota. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  it  is  good  agricultural  land  \vhen  it  is  cleared? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  A  great  deal  of  it  is,  and.  of  course,  a  great  deal  of  it- 
is  not.  There  are  vast  areas  in  Michigan  that  are  not  tillable  ground. 
There  is  a  vast  area  of  land  that  is  too  rolling  and  rough,  and  some 
of  it  with  poor  soil.  In  all  cases  there  must  be  a  careful  examina- 
tion as  to  what  the  result  will  be  before  the  project  is  undertaken. 
There  are  plenty  of  those  instances  in  the  South  and  in  New  Eng- 
land, especially  what  we  have  heard  of  as  the  "  abandoned  farms  " 
in  New  England.  A  great  many  of  those  farms  should  not  have  been 
attempted  in  the  first  place,  because  they  were  too  rocky  for  suc- 
cessful agriculture.  They  were  cultivated  when  they  were  virgin, 
and  yielded  something  in  agriculture,  but  their  best  use  was  for 
timber,  and  that  is  what  they  should  be  allowed  to  produce.  That 
is  also  true  in  some  cases  in  the  South. 

Mr.  TILLMAK.  You  stated  that  Louisiana  is  the  second  State  in 
opportunities.  To  what  State  do  you  accord  primacy? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Oh,  I  did  not  mean  second  best:  I  meant  the  second 
State  in  extensive  opportunities.  Florida  would  come  first,  and 
Louisiana  second.  The  Northern  States,  too,  have  very  large  areas, 
far  beyond  the  possibility  and  intent  of  this  bill. 

Mr.' SUMMERS.  What  kind  of  subdivision  would  you  make  in  south- 
ern Louisiana? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  would  depend  upon  the  location  and  character  of 
the  land.  The  swamp  lands,  mainly,  are  good  agricultural  lands. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  127 

good  for  sugar  cane  and  corn.    Devoted  to  that  purpose,  I  should 
think  the  area  would  be  60  to  80  acres. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  term  "  swamp  land  "  is  a  very  elastic  term. 
I  wish  you  would  give  us  some  idea  of  the  character  of  swamp  land 
that  the  Government  expects  t.o  reclaim. 

Mr.  DAMS.  The  term  "swamp  land"  is  properly  applied  to  lands 
that  require  drainage ;  most  of  them  require  clearing  of  timber,  and 
where  they  require  a  good  deal  of  cutting,  better  opportunities  can 
be  found  in  the  neighborhood.  But  there  are  vast  areas  which  are 
called  swamp  lands  that  are  only  swamp  land  part  of  the  year.  That 
is  particularly  true  in  the  coastal  plain  in  the  South,  in  the  Lake 
States,  and  in  Maine.  Those  lands  require  drainage  and  are  called 
swamp  lands  because  the  natural  drainage  system  has  been  so  filled 
with  debris,  soil  and  brush,  that  they  do  not  drain  readily,  and  the 
result  is  that  in  wet  springs  the  land  becomes  covered  with  water. 
By  utilizing  natural  drains,  and  in  some  cases  by  building  local 
drains,  that  can  be  accomplished  with  comparative  cheapness. 

Then  we  have  the  proposition  of  clearing.  The  two  terms  "  wet "  and 
*;  cut-over  "  land  are  exceedingly  comprehensive  and  elastic.  We  have 
cut-over  land,  for  instance,  in  Maryland,  where  the  land  has  been 
entirely  denuded  and  cultivated  for  a  generation,  and  then  abandoned 
for  various  social  or  other  reasons  and  allowed  to  grow  up  in  tim- 
ber that  is  now  40  or  50  years  of  age.  Then  we  find  land  that  has 
been  cleared  of  merchantable  timber,  leaving  only  young  brush  and 
unmerchantable  timber,  which  starts  a  vigorous  growth  immediately 
the  land  is  cleared.  That  is  the  typical  case  of  cut-over  land.  Every 
year  the  timber  gets  older  and  older,  until  eventually  it  will  be  mer- 
chantable timber.  We  find  that  in  all  stages  of  growth.  The  term 
"  cut-over  land  "  is  indefinitely  elastic,  and  therefore  it  is  almost  im- 
possible to  list  the  cut-over  land.  The  same  is  true  of  the  so-called 
"  wot  "  lands.  But  in  the  most  general  use  of  the  terms,  the  lists  pub- 
lished in  our  annual  report  are  the  best  that  can  be  obtained.  For 
example,  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  which  is  considered  one  of  the  States 
in  which  very  little  development  of  this  kind  is  needed,  there  are 
about  700,000  acres  of  wet  lands,  lands  that  require  drainage  and  pro- 
tection of  some  kind.  They  are  undeveloped  lands  and  generally  need 
clearing.  Sometimes  they  are  cultivated  and  raise  good  crops  one 
year  and  the  next  year  they  fail  because  of  excessive  moisture. 

I  was  raised  in  Illinois  and  I  know  that  in  wet  springs  the  ground 
was  in  some  places  too  wet  to  plow  and  we  could  not  plant  oats  until 
June :  we  could  put  in  a  crop  of  corn  in  June  and  get  a  good  crop. 
There  were  some  places  that  were  not  cultivable  at  all  but  they  were 
very  few.  We  did  not  regard  that  as  swamp  country,  and  yet  after 
I  left  there  they  drained  that  part  of  the  country  and  increased  the 
yield,  cutting  out  the  doubtful  years,  so  that  it  now  pays  well.  That 
is  simply  an  illustration  of  the  gradations  of  the  term  "  swamp  land  " 
or  "wet  land." 

Mr.  HERNANDEZ.  Are  there  any  large  tracts  of  unoccupied  land  in 
the  irrigation  projects  now  undeveloped? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes.  sir.  There  is  practically  a  million  acres  for  which 
water  could  be  made  available. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  what  projects  are  these  tracts  located? 

133319—19 9 


128  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  They  are  located  in  most  of  the  projects.  Only  a  few 
of  them  are  completed.  Most  of  the  projects  have  tracts  that  can  be 
provided  for  in  future  appropriations. 

Mr.  HERNANDEZ.  Would  the  provisions  of  this  bill  apply  to  those 
tracts  ?  . 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Only  partly,  because  in  most  cases  they  are  too  inti- 
mately connected  with  lands  that  have  been  developed  under  totally 
different  terms,  where  no  interest  was  charged,  etc.  But  where  there 
is  an  independent  tract  of  public  land,  or  land  that  can  be  acquired 
at  a  reasonable  rate,  I  see  no  reason  why  this  law  should  not  apply 
to  the  completion  of  an  existing  project. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Some  of  these  projects  have  been  under  construction 
for  10  years.  I  suppose  the  delay  in  completing  them  is  on  account 
of  scarcity  of  funds  and  not  on  account  of  scarcity  of  labor. 

Mr.   DAVIS.  It  has  not  been  on   account  of  scarcity   of  men. 

Mr.  SMITH.  If  you  should  secure  the  necessary  funds,  would  you 
estimate  that  it  would  take  two  or  three  years  to  complete  the  proj- 
ects you  have  planned  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  would  depend  partly  on  how  rapidly  the  funds  were 
made  available.  As  a  rule,  however,  the  projects  in  the  East  are  much 
simpler  than  those  in  the  West,  because  of  the  different  character  of 
reclamation  work  to  be  done,  which  may  be  carried  on  gradually 
and  progressively  or  quickly  and  progressively,  according  to  the 
plan.  It  would  be  infeasible,  or  impossible,  economically,  to  carry 
out  the  work  covered  by  this  bill  in  less  than  five  or  six  years.  It 
would  be  impossible  to  expend  the  money  economically  in  one  or 
two  years  because  it  means  the  building  up  of  an  efficient  organiza- 
tion, which  no  man  on  earth  can  do  over  night.  It  means  finding 
efficient  men,  putting  them  in  places  where  they  are  best  fitted,  and 
making  an  efficient  organization,  which  we  have  been  trying  to  do 
with  the  Army,  and  with  the  swiftness  with  which  that  was  done/ 
there  was  necessarily  a  great  amount  of  waste,  without,  of  course, 
attaching  blame  to  anyone.  An  efficient  organization  must  be  a 
growth,  and  in  that  respect  the  Reclamation  Service  is  well  equipped 
.vith  a  large  organization  which  must  be  a  nucleus  to  the  organization 
we  require. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  would  you  consider  a  wise  expenditure 
for  the  first  year,  and  for  each  year  thereafter  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  have  given  some  thought  to  that  question  and  while 
I  am  not  authorized  to  speak  for  the  department,  I  do  not  think 
there  would  be  much  difference  of  opinion  among  those  in  authority. 
My  idea  was  to  have  an  appropriation  of  $75,000,000  the  first  year, 
$100,000,000  the  second  year,  $125,000,000  the  third  year,  $150,000,000 
the  fourth  year,  and  $50,000,000  the  fifth  year,  to  wind  it  up.  That 
is  a  total  of  $500,000,000. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  would  not  want  all  this  money  in  a  lump- 
sum  appropriation  the  first  year,  would  you? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No,  sir ;  it  could  not  be  wisely  expended. 

Mr.  BAKER.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  two  hypothetical  questions. 
First:  Assuming  that  you  acquired  a  tract  in  Louisiana,  100,000 
acres  of  swamp  and  cut-over  land  needing  draining  and  clearing, 
and  under  this  bill  you  would  drain  and  put  that  land  in  cultivation, 
tear  out  the  stumps  and  trees,  build  the  roads  and  drain  them,  and  no 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  129 

man  would  be  able  to  select  any  tract  of  the  land  until  you  had  finally 
computed  the  cost,  or  estimated  so  near  to  it  that  it  would  be  ap- 
proximately correct,  and  had  some  tract  ready  to  enter. 

Then,  you  would  charge  each  man  the  proportion  of  the  cost  of 
his  tract  to  the  whole  project,  considering  the  most  advantageous 
location  of  the  ground.  In  other  words,  you  would  have  to  estimate 
in  advance  and  would  not  know  what  it  would  cost  him  until  it  was 
finally  disposed  of.  Would  you  be  able  to  work  that  out  successfully 
so  as  to  give  a  reasonable  price  to  the  homesteader? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  it  would  be  possible.  Of  course,  it  is  possible  to 
make  mistakes,  but  we  will  try  to  avoid  them.  There  are  undoubtedly 
a  great  number  of  opportunities  where  that  can  be  done. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Let  us  take  an  illustration  close  at  home,  whore  the 
facts  are  in  my  mind,  and,  I  think,  in  yours ;  and  I  think  it  will  apply 
to  practically  all  Western  States.  In'the  Pitt  River  Valley  there  are 
100,000  acres  of  land  in  private  ownership  and  100,000  acres  of  land 
in  Government  ownership.  There  is  enough  water  to  irrigate  them 
all.  Seventy-five  thousand  acres  of  private  land  is  not  irrigated  be- 
cause they  can  not  get  the  water;  still  the  owners  try  to  farm  it. 
Would  this  bill  permit  you  to  go  in  there  and  make  contracts  with 
those  people  so  that  you  could  dispose  of  the  remaining  public  land 
and  at  the  same  time  make  an  agreement  with  them  whereby  they 
would  dispose  of  a  part  of  their  holdings  to  the  Government,  say  one- 
half  or  three-fourths,  depending  on  the  amount  they  could  cultivate, 
so  that  the  project  could  be  all  taken  up  and  worked,  and  then  put 
men  on  this  land  in  this  settlement,  so  that  the  land  would  be  really 
put  under  cultivation  and  used  as  it  ought  to  be? 

Mr.  DAMS.  With  the  proper  local  cooperation  I  think  this  bill 
would  permit  that  scheme  to  be  carried  out. 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  water  is  there  and  the  climate  is  there,  but  the  land 
can  not  be  used  unless  a  system  is  inaugurated  somewhat  as  I  have 
outlined.  The  Government  started  the  project  but  did  not  complete 
it,  because  they  did  not  have  the  money.  The  question  in  my  mind 
is  whether  or  not  any  of  these  b'ills  are  so  drawn  that  you  could  go  in 
there  and  take  up  these  local  tracts  and  make  an  agreement  with  the 
people  so  that  the  land  will  all  be  irrigated  and  they  will  pay  their 
proportion  the  same  as  the  man  who  takes  up  either  the  Government 
land  or  a  part  of  Smith's  land  that  you  might  sell  to  him.  Do  you 
think  that  could  be  made  workable? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir ;  I  think  that  will  work. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Have  you  figured  on  that  kind  of  scheme? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  W^e  have  had  that  proposition  put  up  to  us  from  your 
State,  in  the  Honey  Lake  country. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  put  a  question  of  that  kind  to  the  people  in  there  and 
they  said  that  they  would  be  perfectly  willing  to  exchange  all  their 
holdings  except  80  acres ;  but  they  were  willing  to  exchange  the  rest  of 
their  land  and  they  would  charge  the  Government,  for  the  part  the 
Government  took,  only  its  present  value,  which  would  be  a  credit  on 
the  water  right.  I  do  not  know  whether  that  would  be  feasible  or 
not. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  I  want  to  get  this  clear.  If  the  local  units  like 
those  designated  would  cooperate  and  would  surrender  a  sufficient 


130  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

amount  of  land,  leaving  themselves  only  enough  for  a  farm  on  which 
to  make  a  living  for  their  families,  and  the  Government  could  take 
the  balance  and  inaugurate  a  system  to  irrigate  that  land,  both  pri- 
vate ownership  and  public  ownership,  the  project  would  be  feasible 
so  far  as  concerns  a  proper  return  for  the  money  invested;  the  cost 
would  not  be  exorbitant,  railroad  transportation  would  be  sufficient, 
and  soil  and  climatic  conditions  would  be  favorable.  Your  depart- 
ment would  recognize  that  plan,  and  you  believe  that  under  this  plan 
the  project  would  be  workable? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Some  project  of  that  kind  probably  could  be  carried 
out,  but  I  wish  to  remind  the  gentleman,  who  is  a  lawyer  and  I  am 
not,  thai  that  is  a  question  of  law,  and  whether  or  not  this  bill  could 
provide  lor  it,  you  can  judge  better  than  I. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  wrould  like  to  get  the  view  of  the  department  on 
that  question,  and  I  wish  you  and  others  would  go  into  it,  so  that  be- 
fore we  complete  these  hearings  the  bill  can  be  drawn  to  cover  that 
condition,  because  over  half  of  our  State  is  in  private  ownership  and 
that  land  would  come  under  the  proposed  plan. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  ask  unanimous  consent  that  the  chairman  have 
printed  Secretary  Lane's  letter,  plus  any  supplement  you  desire  and 
plus  the  exhibits,  so  that  we  can  hats  it  to  study  and  work  on  during 
the  hearings. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Without  objection,  that  will  be  done. 

(Thereupon,  at  12  noon,  the  committee  adjourned  to  meet  to- 
morrow, Tuesday,  June  3,  1919,  at  10  o'clock  a.  in.) 


COMMITTEE  ON  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS, 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Tuesday,  June  3,  1919. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Nicholas  J.  Sinnott 
(chairman)  presiding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen,  I  will  introduce  to  you  Mr.  Hunter, 
the  land  agent  for  the  Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Railroad,  who 
has  been  interested  in  the  matter  of  reclaiming  farms.  Mr.  Hunter, 
will  you  give  the  stenographer  your  name,  address,  and  occupation? 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  H.  F.  HUNTER,  CHICAGO,  ILL.,  SUPERVISOR 
OF  AGRICULTURE  FOR  THE  CHICAGO,  MILWAUKEE  &  ST.  PAUL 
RAILROAD. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  H.  F.  Hunter,  Chicago,  111.,  supervisor  of  agricul- 
ture for  the  Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Railroad. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  do  not  know  why  I  was  called  down  here  unless 
it  was  to  te,ll  some  experiences  I  have  had  in  the  last  30  years  in  sell- 
ing ready-made  farms.  I  have  been  in  charge  o-f  the  development  of 
the  new  territory  of  the  Chicago.  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Railroad  for 
many  years,  and  have  helped  to  settle  that  country.  I  have  been 
buying  unimproved  land,  putting  improvements  on  it,  and  turning 
it  over  to  people  to  farm,  in  many  cases  without  any  money  down  at 
all.  I  have  one  small  colony  of  Russians  in  North  Dakota,  on  the 
Cannon  Ball  River,  that  I  started  five  years  ago.  I  have  100  people 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  131 

there  now,  and  they  are  all  doing  well  and  making  their  payments  on 
the  land. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  State  did  you  say  that  was  in? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  That  is  in  North  Dakota.  I  have  some  in  South 
Dakota,  Montana,  and  Washington.  I  simply  want  to  impress  upon 
you.  gentlemen,  that  this  proposition  of  Secretary  Lane  is  absolutely 
feasible.  The  Government  can  not  lose  any  money  if  they  will  ad- 
vance money  to  the  man  who  is  willing  to  work.  I  think  this  bill 
ought  to  carry  a  little  more  than  $1,200  as  a  first  installment  to  help 
the"  settler,  because  at  the  present  prices  of  machinery  and  live  stock 
that  will  not  be  enough  to  give  him  a  start.  My  experience  is  that  a 
man  should  be  put  on  sufficient  land  to  work  him  to  his  full  capacity. 
If  you  give  him  a  small  layout  he  does  not  have  enough  to  keep  him 
going,  and  he  will  not  make  a  success  of  it,  but  if  you  give  him  a  large 
enough  acreage  and  enough  horses  and  cattle  to  go  ahead  with  it,  if 
he  sticks  there,  it  is  a  cinch  that  he  will  make  it  pay. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Of  course,  the  acreage  would  vary  with  the 
locality? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Oh,  certainly.  In  the  Western  States  I  suppose 
40,  60,  or  80  acres,  where  they  arc  diversified,  would  be  sufficient. 
There  is  no  reason  why  the  project  could  not  be  carried  out  in  ev;ry 
State  in  the  Union,  provided  you  pick  the  men  who  want  to  go 
into  those  States.  My  experience  has  all  been  in  the  Northwest. 
Once  in  a  while  there  is  a  short  crop  or  a  crop  failure,  and  there 
is  a  clause  in  my  contract  with  the  settler  whereby  he  does  not  turn 
anything  over  to  me  in  that  year.  But  in  ordinary  years  he  turns 
over  half  of  the  crop  to  me,  and  that  pays  the  interest.  I  charge 
him  6  per  cent  on  the  land  and  7  per  cent  on  the  live  stock  and  the 
machinery  I  furnish.  That  fellow  has  got  all  the  confidence  of  a 
train  robber;  he  knows  he  has  got  a  living  anyhow.  If  he  does 
have  a  short  crop  or  a  crop  failure  he  is  not  going  to  lose  anything. 
In  other  words,  I  regard  him  as  a  partner  of  mine  in  the  enter- 
prise. My  experience  is  that  these  farms  will  pay  better  on  a  half- 
crop  payment  every  year  than  on  a  10-year  annual  payment  plan. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  many  acres  have  you  assisted  in  reclaiming? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  We  do  not  have  to  reclaim  that  land.  It  is  dry 
fanned.  Our  wheat  runs  from  10  to  40  bushels  per  acre. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  not  irrigated  land? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  No,  sir;  there  is  a  lot  of  land  in  the  Northwest  that 
is  not  irrigated  at  all,  but  they  have  plenty  of  water. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Is  that  land  public  land,  private  land,  or  what? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  The  land  I  am  operating  on  is  Indian  land.  The  Gov- 
ernment is  selling  a  lot  of  heirship  land  in  that  country.  First  the  Gov- 
ernment apprai:  es  the  land  and  then  they  advertise,  and  we  bid  on 
the  land.  There  are  millions  of  acres  of  land  in  that  country  just  in 
that  situation. 

Mr.  SNELL.  What  is  the  average  price  per  acre  at  which  you  sell  it? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  It  runs  from  $15  to  $20  an  acre. 

Mr.  SNELL.  The  Government  has  done  practically  nothing  to  the 
land  before  you  buy  it? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  No.  sir.  All  I  do  is  buy  a  piece  of  land,  fen  e  it,  and 
put  buildings  on  it.  I  have  a  standard  building  for  different  kinds 
of  farms.  I  have  one  set  of  buildings  for  a  large  farm,  and  another 


132  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

set  for  a  small  farm,  and  the  overhead  is  not  much  greater  on  a  large 
farm  than  on  a  small  farm.  That  is  why  we  can  give  the  man 
pi  nty  of  credit  in  both  cases. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  spoke  of  picking  your  men  for  these  farms. 
Just  what  do  you  mean? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Well,  it  takes  a  pretty  good  man  to  be  a  farmer. 
I  do  not  care  whether  a  man  has  had  any  experience  in  farming  or 
not.  If  he  is  a  married  man,  a  young  fellow,  and  looks  to  me  as 
if  he  will  stick,  I  will  give  him  a  'chance. 

We  have  the  county  agents  in  that  country.  The  agricultural  col- 
leges have  them  in  nearly  every  county  in  North  Dakota.  The 
county  agent  will  come  down  to  these  settlements  and  show  the  peo- 
ple how  to  carry  on  farming,  going  right  into  the  field  and  showing 
they  how  to  put  in  a  crop.  Where  we  vaccinate  our  cattle,  once  in  a 
while  the  county  agent  will  come  down  and  the  farmers  will  come 
in  from  4  or  5  miles  around,  and  he  will  show  them  how  to  vaccinate 
the  cattle,  explain  to  them  why  it  should  be  done,  and  when  they 
have  had  that  lesson  they  will  take  better  care  of  their  stock.  There 
is  not  much  to  vaccinate  against  there. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  think  a  plan  of  this  kind  would  be 
feasible  with  the  returning  soldiers  who  have  had  no  experience 
with  farming? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Yes,  sir ;  there  is  no  doubt  about  it,  and  particularly 
right  now.  I  have  read  a  good  deal  in  the  newspapers  about  "  com- 
munity centers."  Now,  that  is  just  what  you  want  to  keep  away 
from.  Any  man  who  has  not  enough  nerve  to  take  his  wife  and 
kids  out  of  the  community  to  a  farm  several  miles  away  and  make  a 
success  of  it  ought  to  keep  away  from  the  farm.  Our'soldiers  have 
seen  enough  of  farming  in  moving  pictures  and  Y.  M.  C.  A.  shows, 
and  only  about  20  per  cent  of  the  men  will  be  failures  and  drop  out 
of  the  game.  But  the  land  that  they  have  taken  will  be  worth  more 
money  when  they  leave  it  than  when  they  took  it  up,  and  you  can 
turn  it  over  to  some  one  else  at  an  advanced  price,  if  you  want  to. 
About  20  per  cent  of  my  people  drop  out  of  the  farms,  but  in  all  my 
30  years  experience  I  have  never  taken  back  a  farm  of  that  kind 
but  what  I  could  sell  it  for  more  than  the  men  was  owing  on  it  or 
what  he  had  put  into  it.  In  fact,  in  every  case  I  get  the  farm  back 
with  interest  on  it. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Did  you  ever  establish  a  community  center  in  your  op- 
erations ? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  No,  sir;  except  I  built  a  church  for  the  Russian 
colonists. 

Mr.  MAYS.  And  did  they  go  to  the  church  ? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Oh,  yes ;  they  went  to  the  church  all  right,  but  when 
I  tried  to  put  two  families  on  one  piece  of  land  in  every  case  they 
blew  up.  I  tried  it  three  times.  For  instance,  I  built  a  double 
house  on  a  section  of  land  and  put  two  Russian  families  in  the  house, 
with  separate  barns,  however,  for  their  live  stock,  but  in  every  ca^o 
they  could  not  get  along  and  had  a  fight.  That  happened  in  three 
cases.  Most  of  these  men  in  North  Dakota  do  not  want  to  be  near 
towns;  they  want  to  get  back  out  of  town,  to  keep  the  boys  away 
from  drugstores,  and  soft-drink  counters,  and  pool  halls.  You 
will  always  find  a  bunch  of  loafers  around  a  town  hall.  As  T  have 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  133 

•said,  any  soldier  who  has  not  nerve  enough  to  go  out  5  or  10  miles 
from  town  and  start  in  on  a  farm  ought  not  to  be  put  on  a  farm. 
You  get  a  little  bunch  around  a  community  center  and  there  will  be 
a  lot  of  loafing  and  too  much  theorizing,  with  the  result  that  you 
will  raise  a  nation  of  mollycoddles.  You  do  not  want  to  bring  up 
a  race  of  peasants  like  they  have  in  some  countries,  where  the  family 
lives  in  one  end  of  the  house  and  the  pig  and  cow  in  the  other.  You 
want  to  spread  them  out,  and  you  will  have  to  pick  out  strong, 
capable  fellows. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  For  a  community  center  they  can  go  to  town. 
If  a  town  is  needed  it  will  grow  up  naturally. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  It  is  nothing  for  a  man  to  slip  into  his  "  Lizzie  " 
and  go  10  miles  to  a  dance.  They  do  not  think  anything  of  it. 
They  have  roads  and,  I  think,  moving  pictures.  They  have  two  or 
three  churches  in  town;  they  have  dances  every  week;  they  have 
their  lodges;  and  they  have  everything  that  anybody  but  a  crank 
could  Avant. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  really  amounts  to  a  community  center? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Why,  our  town  is  a  community  center. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  they  naturally  grow  up  if  the  project  justi- 
fies it? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Yes,  sir.  Now,  instead  of  having  a  whole  lot  of 
little  towns  with  small  merchants  all  together,  doing  a  little  business 
at  small  profit,  we  figure  on  putting  our  towns  10  miles  apart  along 
the  railroad.  That  means  better  competition,  better  prices  for  farm 
produce,  because  a  merchant  can  handle  a  larger  business  on  less 
profit  than  the  little  fellow  can.  Now,  the  hardships  of  the  country 
have  gone.  They  have  their  telephone,  their  rural  delivery,  their 
daily  paper,  and  their  stage  line.  Some  of  my  people  live  7  miles 
or  8  miles  from  town,  and  ship  a  lot  of  cream  to  town.  They  have  a 
little  arrangement  whereby  one  man  takes  the  cream  in  this  week, 
another  man  the  next  week,  and  another  the  next.  There  is  no  such 
thing  as  lonesomeness  in  farm  life  there.  It  is  a  myth,  and  the 
theorists  that  write  about  it  do  not  know  anything  about  it.  You 
go  there  and  you  will  see  a  moving  picture  of  farm  life  in  actual 
life,  and  any  man  who  claims  there  is  lonesomeness  on  farms  has  no 
business  being  on  a  farm. 

Mr.  GANDY.  Now,  the  fact  that  you  sell  land  to  the  man  on  the 
crop-payment  plan  is  evidence  to  the  man  who  goes  on  it  that  you 
have  confidence  in  the  land,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  GANDY.  That  starts  him  out  with  confidence? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  GANDY.  Taking  your  general  experience  in  the  Northwest, 
North  and  South  Dakota  and  adjoining  States,  has  it  or  has  it  not 
been  your  experience  that  the  man  who  actually  stayed  with  his 
farm,  even  through  more  or  less  adversity  to  start  with,  has  made 
.a  success  of  it  in  the  end? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Absolutely.  I  settled  the  Jim  River  Valley  in  North 
Dakota  in  1892,  when  we  had  to  twist  hay  and  burn  it  in'  the  stovo. 
During  those  hard  times  wheat  was  selling  at  50  cents  a  bushel.  A 
man  wanted  to  buy  a  farm  and  did  not  have  the  money  to  put  down. 
I  turned  over  to  him  a  quarter  section  and  said :  "  Put  it  under  cul- 
tivation, and  when  you  raise  your  crop,  give  me  3,000  bushels  of 


134  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

wheat."  He  took  the  land  and  farmed  it,  and  turned  over  to  me 
3,000  bushels  of  wheat.  Last  year  I  got  75  cents  a  bushel  for  it  in- 
stead of  50  cents,  and  you  could  not  buy  that  land  to-day  for  $125 
an  acre.  That  shows  that  while  settlement  does  not  increase  the 
rainfall,  it  tends  to  conserve  moisture. 

Mr.  GANDY.  You  speak  of  heirship  land.  Practically  every  res- 
ervation in  the  Northwest  has  from  a  score  to  a  hundred  acres  of 
what  we  call  heirship  land. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  There  is  a  great  deal  of  heirship  land.  There  are 
a  lot  of  Indians  who  are  rich  enough  in  land,  but  they  do  not  get 
enough  to  eat.  For  instance,  a  buck  has  640  acres,  and  his  squaw 
has  320  acres,  and  they  have  not  enough  to  eat.  If  he  would  sell 
a  quarter  section  he  would  have  enough  to  live  on  as  long  as  he  lives, 
and  be  well  cared  for  and  happy,  but  instead  of  doing  that,  he  holds 
on  to  his  land  and  gets  hungry. 

Mr.  MAYS.  You  purchase  that  tract  of  land  from  the  Indian  and 
sell  it  to  the  settlor? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  No,  sir ;  I  purchase  the  land  from  the  Government. 

Mr.  MAYS.  As  a  representative  of  the  railroad  company  ? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  No,  sir;  personally.  The  railroad  has  no  funds  for 
that  purpose.  It  does  not  take  much  of  my  own  time ;  I  have  a  man 
to  look  after  the  business.  Now,  the  State  of  South  Dakota,  at  the 
last  session  of  the  State  legislature,  appropriated  $1,000,000  to  aid 
soldiers  in  getting  settled  on  farms.  I  believe  some  provision  ought 
to  be  made  in  this  bill  to  allow  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  work 
with  the  States  who  have  already  made  this  provision. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  is  such  a  provision  in  the  bill. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  The  State  of  South  Dakota  proposes  to  work  out  the 
plan  in  this  way :  They  will  take  over  State  land  or  buy  up  Indian 
land,  put  improvements  on  it  and  sell  it  to  the  settler.  Then  their 
rural  credits  department  will  advance  the  settler  70  per  cent  of  what 
this  proposition  has  cost.  Of  course,  the  rural-credits  system  in 
South  Dakota  is  not  big  enough  to  handle  it  on  a  very  large  scale. 
Now,  if  this  Government  will  do  what  the  Canadian  Government 
does — if  the  State  will  develop  the  land  and  put  the  settler  on  it,  then 
the  Government  ought  to  absorb  70  per  cent  of  the  cost,  taking  the 
settler's  bonds  for  70  per  cent  of  the  cost,  and  in  many  cases  the  State 
will  get  30  per  cent  of  the  cash  out  of  the  land  to  start  with.  With 
the  help  of  the  Government  South  Dakota  could  handle  a  hundred 
million  dollar  deal. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Is  it  the  policy  of  the  State  to  colonize  the  soldiers, 
or  would  it  allow  the  soldier  to  select  his  home  community  ? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  I  think  they  should  do  both.  I  think  it  is  a  wise 
thing  to  allow  the  soldier  to  select  the  place  where  he  wants  to  go, 
provided  the  land  can  be  bought  at  a  reasonable  price.  There  ought 
to  be  a  provision  in  this  bill  whereby  a  man  can  get  a  farm  in  New 
England  or  in  Montana,  or  in  the  South. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  This  bill  provides  for  a  sort  of  colonization  plan; 
that  is.  to  settle  them  in  soldier  colonies.  Now,  is  that  a  requirement 
of  your  South  Dakota  law? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  No,  sir :  not  as  I  understand  it. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Do  you  think  that  we  should  require  cooperation  on  the 
part  of  each  individual  State  where  these  activities  are  stalled,  or 
that  the  Federal  Government  should  do  it  all  ? 


HOMES   FOK  SOLDIERS.  135 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Well.  I  think  the  States  ought  to  be  asked  to  help. 
I  think  you  would  make  a  better  success  of  it  if  the  different  States 
would  help. 

Mr.  SNELL.  And  make  that  a  requirement  of  the  legislation  ? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  I  would  not  be  prepared  to  say.  I  had  not  thought 
much  about  that,  but  under  some  of  the  State  constitutions  they  can 
do  that, 

Mr.  SXKLL.  But  you  are  firmly  convinced  that  it  is  more  likely  to 
be  a  success  if  the  legal  authorities  have  a  definite  positive  interest  in 
the  money  expended? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Yes.  sir;  I  am. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  made  any  observations  in  the  Eastern 
States  to  determine  whether  or  not  this"  plan  would  be  feasible? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Well.  I  was  born  and  brought  up  in  eastern  Canada 
and  have  been  in  this  country  36  or  37  years.  I  go  through  the  East- 
ern States  very  often.  There  is  no  reason  why  any  of  these  old  farms 
could  not  be  rehabilitated,  and  that  can  be  done  if  you  put  a  young 
man  on  a  farm  who  has  the  ability  to  make  good.  Of  course,  he 
would  have  to  use  fertilizer  in  that  part  of  the  country,  whereas  you 
gentlemen  of  the  West  use  water.  That  is  the  only  difference.  The 
Government  will  make  a  much  greater  success  of  this  proposition  if 
they  will  let  the  soldier  designate  practically  where  he  wants  to  go, 
because  I  do  not  think  a  northern  man  would  want  to  go  South, 
and  a  southern  man  would  not  want  to  go  North. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  I  suppose  nearly  every  State  has  a  project.  Would 
you  say  that  the  State  should  specify  the  conditions  or  would  you 
say  that  the  soldier  should  be  allowed  to  choose  the  particular  farm 
in^the  particular  State? 

Mi-.  HUNTER.  He  could  not  do  that,  but  he  could  choose  the  State. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  And  if  there  is  a  community  project  in  that  State  that 
the  Government  is  developing,  you  would  say  that  he  could  locate 
in  that  State  and  on  that  Government  project  ? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  GANDT.  If  you  are  in  a  locality  where  you  must  have  a  project, 
by  reason  of  drainage,  by  reason  of  irrigation,  or  by  reason  of  pull- 
ing stumps,  then  the  project,  so  termed,  would  be  all  right:  and  if 
you  are  in  a  locality  where  nothing  is  needed  except  the  construction 
of  buildings,  putting  up  fences  and  digging  wells,  would  a  so-called 
project  be  necessary? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Xo,  sir. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  It  has  been  suggested  that  a  man  would  get  more  as- 
sistance in  a  project  where  there  could  be  cooperative  work — that  is, 
where  the  project  would  be  large  enough  to  have  a  common  tractor  for 
service  among  the  various  farmers,  and  where  they  could  afford  to 
employ  an  expert  to  supervise  the  work.  Now,  that  could  be  done  bet- 
ter on'a  project  than  on  isolated  farms  scattered  25  or  30  miles  apart, 
could  it  not? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Undoubtedly. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  And  do  3-011  not  think  it  could  be  developed  by  drain- 
age, etc..  and  then  sold  to  the  soldier  at  a  cheaper  price  on  the  whole, 
on  the  average,  than  you  could  sell  to  the  soldier  an  isolated  farm  in 
a  particular  spot  that  he  could  choose?  In  other  words,  a  wholesale 
transaction  can  be  carried  out  more  cheaply  than  a  retail  transaction? 


136  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Yes,  sir;  it  could  be  done  on  a  cut-over  land,  drain- 
age, or  irrigation  project. 

Mr.  BEX  HAM.  Would  you  assume  that  the  Government  would  do 
this  work  more  cheaply  or  more  efficiently  than  private  enterprise  ? 

Mr.  HUNTER.    I  do  not  assume  so ;  it  can  be  done. 

Mr.  SNELL.  I  come  from  New  York  State,  and  in  northern  New 
York  and  in  New  England  there  are  a  great  many  farms  of  from 
100  to  140  acres,  around  in  that  vicinity,  where  the"  land  is  all  right 
and  has  been  tilled,  but  it  has  run  out.  Those  farms  can  be  bought 
to-day  for  less  than  the  cost  of  the  buildings.  What  do  you  think  of 
the  project  of  the  Government  buying  those  farms  and  letting  indi- 
vidual men  go  and  select  them,  taking  men  from  New  York  State  and 
letting  them  select  these  farms  ? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  That  is  just  the  way  the  Government  should  handle 
these  farms.  They  ought  to  pick  them  up  and  have  their  experts  tell 
what  is  necessary  to  bring  them  back  to  life. 

Mr.  SNELL.  We  have  our  agricultural  agents  in  every  county  in 
the  New  England  States,  and  that  is  what  they  are  doing  in  New 
York. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Yes ;  and  the  agricultural  department  of  New  York, 
together  with  the  railroads  of  New  York,  are  reclaiming  that  land. 

Mr.  SNELL.  The  trouble  is  that  the  farms  are  owned  by  men  who 
are  past  the  time  of  life  when  they  can  take  care  of  the  land;  they 
have  no  young  help  to  take  care  of  the  farms. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  That  is  true,  and  if  the  Government  or  the  State 
would  step  in  to-day  they  could  buy  them  for  less  than  they  are 
wjorth. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Well,  at  any  rate,  they  could  buy  them  for  less  than 
it  would  cost  to  construct 'the  buildings? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Yes,  sir ;  and  the  sooner  that  is  done  the  sooner  that 
evil  will  be  remedied. 

Mr.  GANDY.  Let  us  go  back  to  the  Indian  proposition.  These  In- 
dian lands  sell  for  very  close  to  the  appraisement,  do  they  not? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  GANDY.  Realizing  that  that  is  true,  and  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  has  jurisdiction,  would  it  not  be  a  benefit  to  any  Indian 
reservation  in  the  country  if  you  took  enough  of  this  tribal  or  heir- 
ship  land  that  they  are  going  to  sell  to  make  a  good  farm  and  turned 
it  over  to  a  project  of  this  kind  at  the  appraised  price,  and  let  it  be 
developed,  and  in  the  end  would  not  the  reservation  be  the  gainer, 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  value  of  the  remaining  lands  would  be 
thereby  increased? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  It  would  more  than  double  the  value  of  the  land. 
An  Indian  could  even  afford  to  give  away  half  of  his  land  in  order 
to  increase  the  value  of  the  remainder. 

!NFr.  GANDY.  Take  either  the  Cheyenne  or  Standing  Rock  country, 
as  a  rough  guess.  How  many  quarter  sections  of  heirship  land  would 
you  say  are  available  on  either  one  of  those  reservations? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  You  could  take  up  50,000  acres  easily  on  either  one  of 
them.  More  than  3,000,000  acres  on  the  Standing  Rock  Reservation 
have  been  leased  for  grazing  this  year. 

Mr.  SNELL.  I  wish  von  would  explain  what  is  meant  bv  "heirship 
land." 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  137 

Mr.  HUNTER.  It  is  Indian  land. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  airplanes? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  No,  sir.  It  is  land  that  has  fallen  to  the  Indians  by 
inheritance. 

Mr.  GANDY.  It  is  land  that  has  passed  through  the  heirship  divi- 
sion of  the  Indian  Office,  which  is  somewhat  like  your  probate  court 
in  New  York. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  inherited  land  ? 

Mr.  GANDY.  Yes;  inherited  land. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  When  the  Government  allotted  the  land  to  the  In- 
dians it  gave  the  buck  640  acres  and  the  squaw  320  acres  and  the 
children  got  160  acres,  and  that  is  called  heirship  land.  When  they 
died  off,  instead  of  the  title  being  adjudicated  by  the  county  courts, 
or  probate  courts,  the  Government  determined'  the  heirs  of  those 
people  and  then  issued  deeds  to  whoever  bought  it. 

Mr.  VAILE.  The  Government  gives  an  administrator's  deed. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  We  have  some  land  in  my  part  of  the  country  that 
Jakes  an  airplane  to  get  at,  and  I  though  may  be  that  was  the  same 
kind. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Where  are  you  from? 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  California.* 

Mr.  HUNTER.  You  have  a  State  project  that  has  worked  out  very 
successfully. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Yes;  it  has. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  presume  that  the  reason  of  your  being  so  successful 
in  your  operations  is  that  you  take  a  great  deal  of  care  in  selecting 
the  men  to  whom  you  make  these  advances.  Is  that  true?  In  other 
words,  you  ascertain  in  advance  whether  they  are  reliable,  honest, 
and  industrious? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  No.  sir;  I  generally  just  look  at  them  between  the 
eyes. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Do  you  think  it  would  be  wise  to  embody  in  this  legis- 
lation a  provision  that  these  selections  should  be  made  through  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior,  first  ascertaining  whether  the  man  is  reli- 
able and  industrious  before  the  money  is  advanced? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Well,  there  ought  not  to  be  too  much  red  tape.  In 
the  first  place,  every  soldier  ought  to  be  able  to  pay  a  small  amount 
of  money  down,  either  himself  or  through  his  relatives.  If  a  man 
has  only  $500,  and  you  let  him  put  that  down  and  advance  him  some 
credit,  you  can  hold  him  just  as  well  as  the  big  man  who  has  a  large 
investment.  And  you  want  to  avoid  the  idea  that  the  Government 
is  going  to  do  something  for  these  people  for  nothing.  I  have  had 
as  many  as  a  hundred  inquiries  from  all  over  the  country  along  that 
line.  I  had  one  from  a  man  in  Montana  who  said  he  heard  the  Gov- 
ernment was  going  to  stake  him  to  a  farm,  and  he  said  all  he  had 
was  two  pet  goats  and  he  wanted  to  know  whether  the  Government 
would  let  him  take  them  along.  The  Government  will  have  thou- 
sands of  inquiries  just  like  that,  with  nothing  in  them.  My  idea  is 
that  wherever  you  open  a  project  in  a  State,  soldiers  who  want  to 
go  to  that  State  ought  to  be  referred  to  that  project,  and  let  the 
State  select  the  men.  Now,  you  will  have  to  give  them  all  a  chance. 
and  you  are  not  taking  any  chaiices  when  you  put  men  on  the  land, 
because  every  day's  work  applied  intelligently  increases  the  value 


138  HOMIS  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

of  the  farm.  The  Government  can  not  lose  any  money  on  these 
projects  unless  they  are  overofficered. 

Mr.  GANDY.  In  the  last  few  months  how  many  cars  of  immigrants* 
goods  have  you  handled? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  On  our  branch  line  in  Dakota  we  had  260  cars  in 
February,  390  cars  in  March,  296  cars  in  April,  and  I  have  not  re- 
ceived the  figures  for  May.  That  is  only  for  immigrants'  movables, 
averaging  three  families  to  a  car. 

Mr.  SNELL.  That  means  people  going  from  the  city  to  the  country? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  It  means  renters  going  out  from  the  city  to  the  coun- 
try. You  understand  that  for  50  years  the  only  organized  oppor- 
tunity to  bring  people  back  to  the  farms  was  the  railroad,  and  when 
we  entered  the  war  the  Government  took  over  the  railroads,  but  we 
have  still  carried  on  our  advertising.  The  year  before  the  war  I 
moved  6,600  people  through  our  gates  to  the  lands  on  the  extension 
line. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  One  of  the  objections  urged  against  this  bill  is 
that  it  will  decrease  the  supply  of  farm  labor. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Decrease  it? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Where  do  they  get  that  idea? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  has  been  urged  before  the  committee  that  at 
the  present  time  there  is  a  scarcity  of  farm  labor. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  It  will  increase  your  farm  labor.  The  more  people 
you  put  in  the  country  the  more  you  increase  your  farm  labor. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Will  this  colonization  scheme  have  that  effect  upon 
u  part  of  the  country  where  there  is  no  such  colonization?  For  in- 
stance, in  my  district  I  do  not  think  there  will  be  a  colonization 
scheme,  and  I  anticipate  that  the  very  best  returning  soldiers  in  that 
community  will  need  Government  aid.  Will  they  stay  on  the  farms 
where  they  are  and  do  without  Government  help,  or  will  they  go  to 
other  communities  ? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Would  the  soldier  be  there  as  a  farm  laborer  now? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  They  are  there  as  farm  laborers,  or  as  part  owners 
of  farms. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  What  State  are  you  from  ? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Indiana. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  We  have  a  large  immigration  from  Indiana.  If 
there  is  a  soldier  in  Indiana  now  who  is  a  farm  laborer  and  willing 
to  go  West  and  accept  Government  credit,  you  ought  to  be  glad  to 
let  him  go. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  But  the  point  is:  What  is  the  effect  upon  our  com- 
munity of  the  going  away  of  the  best  men  in  the  community? 

Mr. 'HUNTER.  It  will  never  be  noticeable.  In  the  territory  where  I 
operate  the  young  men  are  growing  up  so  fast  that  we  do  not  find 
much  shortage  of  farm  labor  because  the  farmers  bunch  together  and 
get  their  work  done. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  We  have  been  speaking  of  the  large  number  of 
practically  abandoned  farms  in  New  England.  What  is  the  cause  of 
that? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  I  think  the  greatest  cause  of  it  is  that  people  have 
grown  old,  the  soil  has  worn  out,  and  they  can  not  compete  with  the 
West  in  raising  grain  and  hay. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  139 

Mr.  BEN ii AM.  And  the  younger  men  have  gone  West? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  The  younger  men  have  gone  West  and  made  good. 
There  is  one  thing  that  is  going  to  help  the  East  and  that  is  the 
higher  freight  rates  on  grain  and  live  stock. 

Mr.  BEN  ii  AM.  In  short,  is  not  the  condition  pictured  in  New  York 
equally  true  of  the  Central  West:  That  the  cheapness  and  fertility 
of  the  soil  of  the  Middle  West  has  tended  to  cause  the  farms  in  the 
older  States  to  be  abandoned? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  No.  sir:  I  do  not  think  that  has  caused  it.  I  think 
it  is  the  cheapness  with  which  we  carry  on  farming  in  the  West  that 
lias  brought  about  that  C9ndition. 

Mr.  VAILE.  It  is  farming  on  a  larger  scale  in  the  West? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  -Yes,  sir;  farming  on  a  larger  scale,  and  the  low 
freight  rates  that  we  used  to  have  }Tears  ago  put  the  eastern  fellow  out 
of  business,  but  that  ought  not  to  be  so  any  more,  because  the  eastern 
man  ought  to  get  more  for  his  grain. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Are  the  rates  going  to  continue  to  get  higher  in  the 
West? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  I  think  they  will,  unless  you  want  to  make  an  indirect 
tax  on  the  people  to  keep  the  wages  up.  I  do  not  think  the  United 
States  will  have  to  contend  with  the  cheap  labor  of  Europe  from 
now  on,  and  I  believe  we  are  going  to  eat  more  beef  and  grain,  and  I 
think  the  farmers  are  going  to  have  a  more  prosperous  time.  The 
farmers  of  the  Middle  West  are  wearing  silk  shirts  and  underwear. 

What  I  want  to  impress  upon  the  committee  is  that  if  the  Gov- 
ernment will  lend  aid  to  these  returning  soldiers  there  is  no  chance 
of  losing  a  dollar  of  the  money  invested,  and  it  will  build  up  a 
country  where  the  farmers  are  not  Bolshevists  or  Socialists,  where 
they  have  all  got  something,  where  they  are  all  farm  owners,  and 
where  they  will  be  men  among  men. 

Mr.  Chairman.  I  start  out  my  advertising  saying :  "  Own  your  own 
home.  Be  a  prosperous,  loyal  American  citizen.  Give  your  family 
a  chance.  Keep  out  of  the  crowded  cities.  Be  an  empire  builder. 
Work  for  yourself  instead  of  the  other  fellow."  Now,  when  we  hand 
them  that  and  get  the  right  fellows,  and  when  I  take  a  fellow  out 
and  show  him  a  farm  with  the  buildings  and  the  well,  the  back 
kitchen,  and  the  pasture  fence,  and  hand  the  wife  the  key  and  say : 
u  Do  you  want  it  ?  "  they  all  grab  it.  Now,  if  I  can  do  that  in  a 
small  way  with  a  few  hundred  thousand  dollars  invested,  what  could 
the  Government  do?  We  are  the  greatest  Nation  to-day,  but  we 
could  make  it  doubly  great,  I  am  sure. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  What  railroad  are  you  connected  with? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  The  Chicago.  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Your  activities  in  this  farm  settlement  proposition 
arc  a  personal  enterprise  with  you,  are  they  not? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Yes,  sir;  and  I  have  some  friends  in  it. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  restrict  the  settlement  of  farms  to  soldiers? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Oh,  no:  never. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  consider  it  a  good  proposition,  aside  from 
the  point  of  helping  the  soldier? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Why.  certainly.  I  think  this  bill  should  contain  a 
provision  whereby  it  would  give  the  soldier  the  first  right,  and  after- 
ward apply  it  to  any  citizen  who  desires  to  take  up  a  farm.  I  say 


140  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

that  for  this  reason  :  That  you  are  not  going  to  get  as  many  soldiers  as 
you  figure  for,  and  the  idea  ought  to  be  to  get  everybody  back  on  the 
farm.  That  is  my  idea. 

Mr.  RAKER.  If  you  put  them  all  back  on  the  farm  you  will  have 
nobody  in  the  cities. 

Mr. 'HUNTER.  Well,  put  back  enough  to  balance  the  country  evenly 
with  the  city.  If  you  do  not  do  that  you  are  going  to  have  indus- 
trial trouble  in  this  country,  and  bad  trouble  at  that.  Unless  you 
reduce  the  cost  of  production,  the  prices  are  going  to  be  so  high  that 
the  laboring  man  will  not  get  enough  to  eat. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  are  you  goingto  do  if  you  reduce  prices  to  the 
man  on  the  farm  and  _yet  increase  wages? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Well, 'there  will  be  an  adjustment  when  prices  come 
doAvn. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Do  you  know  whether  what  you  have  told  us  about 
the  prosperity  of  the  small  farmer  in  the  Middle  West,  his  ability  to 
wear  silk  shirts,  etc.,  is  true  of  the  farmer  in  the  East  ( 

Mr.  HUNTER.  I  am  not  familiar  with  the  farmers  east  of  Chicago, 
but  from  Chicago  to  the  Pacific  coast  she's  blooming  like  a  rose. 

Mr.  BEKHAM.  On  cheap,  virgin  land  ? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Well,  it  is  not  as  cheap  as  it  ought  to  be. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  land  out  West  is  higher  priced 
per  acre  than  the  land  in  the  East  ? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Oh,  yes.  Land  in  Illinois  is  selling  in  some  cases  for 
$300  an  acre,  and  $250  an  acre  in  Iowa.  In  Yankton,  S.  Dak.,  last 
spring  a  farm  sold  at  $255  per  acre. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Then,  the  land  in  the  Middle  West  is  higher  than  the 
land  in  the  East? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Oh,  there  is  no  doubt  about  it. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  That  is  what  I  thought. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Because  we  have  better  farming  conditions  there. 
better  soil,  younger  soil,  and  big,  broad  prairies.  That  accounts 
for  it. 

Mr.  MATS.  And  properly  tilled  it  will  last  a  longtime? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MATS.  The  gentleman  speaks  of  virgin  land.  Do  you  find  that 
the  land  wears  out  at  an  early  date  in  the  West? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  No,  sir.  I  have  always  farmed  in  the  West,  because 
I  was  brought  up  on  a  farm,  nnd  I  have  always  spent  my  holidays  on 
a  farm.  In  the  Jim  River  Valley  in  South  Dakota  I  grew  21  crops 
of  wheat  on  one  piece  of  land,  and  the  last  crop  was  as  good  as  the 
first.  The  crop  on  that  farm  averaged  from  10  to  35  bushels  an  acre. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Did  you  use  fertilizer? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Did  you  alternate  your  crop  ? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  No,  sir.  I  burned  it  off  and  grew  wheat  every  year. 
That  valley  is  150  miles  wide  and  never  has  overflowed. 

Mr.  MAYS.  How  much  land  do  you  sell  to  an  individual? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Three  hundred  and  twenty  acres. 

Mr.  MATS.  That  is  the  maximum? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Yes,  sir.  Well,  if  he  a  good  man,  and  a  hum-dingcr, 
I  will  sell  him  a  section.  I  took  one  returned  soldier  up  their  and 
showed  him  the  country  and  he  took  960  acres,  $1,800  worth  of  ma- 


HOMES  FOB  SOLDIERS.  141 

chinery,  four  good  horses,  a  thoroughbred  bull,  some  thoroughbred 
cows,  and  some  chickens.  He  is  6  miles  out  from  town,  and  that 
land  is  certainly  going  to  improve. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Speaking  of  these  hum-dingers,  if  he  wants  to  get  some 
return  on  this  wheat  he  has  to  pay  two  or  three  times  as  much  for 
his  machinery  and  about  three  times  as  much  for  his  horses  and 
harness. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Oh,  yes;  because  I  have  lived  in  the  country  where 
they  sell  them  for  35  years,  and  his  team  will  cost  him  $250.  He 
pays  for  the  things  he  buys  to  make  his  home  two  or  three  times. 
Now,  he  must  get  some  return  for  what  he  raises. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Well,  he  does.  He  can  buy  a  good  farm  team  for 
$200. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Twelve  hundred-pound  horses? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  The  tractor  has  taken  the  place  of  the  horses.  The 
tractor  is  going  to  do  for  farming  just  what  the  automobile  has  done 
for  transportation  on  the  highway,  and  that  is  what  we  are  using. 
Take  this  man  I  have  just  been  speaking  about.  He  has  a  tractor 
that  does  the  work  of  20  horses  and  he  can  handle  it  himself.  He 
saves  three  men  on  that  place,  and  that  tractor  only  eats  when  it 
works,  and  then  it  does  not  cost  more  for  oil  than  feed  for  a  team. 
Now,  that  man  can  keep  20  cows  instead  of  20  horses,  and  at  the 
present  price  of  butterfat  each  cow  will  earn  $50  a  piece  and  bring 
him  a  calf  worth  $35.  That  is  the  way  we  farm  in  that  country. 
You  understand  that  when  the  man  is  on  the  farm  he  has  no  house 
rent  to  pay,  he  has  his  meat,  vegetables,  butter,  milk  and  eggs,  and 
his  poultry.  He  does  not  have  to  go  around  in  Sunday  clothes;  he 
just  wears  overalls,  so  what  use  has  he  got  for  money? 

Mr.  VAILE.  He  might  need  a  silk  shirt  to  go  to  a  dance. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  He  would  not  use  them  if  he  had  them.  He  has  no 
appearances  to  keep  up.  He  can  not  wear  a  stiff  collar  to  drive  a 
plow  or  break  a  bronco.  He  has  got  to  be  dressed  for  that  purpose. 
Now,  all  through  that  country  we  have  the  lignite  coal,  and  he 
goes  out  and  digs  his  coal,  and  all  he  has  to  buy  is  a  little  sugar  for  his 
coffee  and  a  few  clothes.  I  think  these  prices  will  come  down  event- 
ually, but  farm  prices  will  never  be  where  they  were  10  years  ago, 
because  if  they  do  the  farmers  will  not  raise  the  stuff;  they  will  cur- 
tail the  production.  The  farmers  are  getting  well  organized  through- 
out the  North,  and  they  are  pretty  intelligent  farmers.  So  far  as 
cash  money  goes  the  farmer  in  Dakota  on  the  poorest  640  acre  tract, 
if  he  has  a  span  of  mares,  some  cows,  pigs,  and  chickens,  is  just  as 
far  ahead  of  the  man  in  Chicago  working  for  $300  a  month  as  God  is 
from  a  tree  toad. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Some  people  have  tried  to  tell  us  that  the  organization 
of  the  Nonpartisan  League  in  that  part  of  the  country  was  due  to 
dissatisfaction  on  the  part  of  the  farmer. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  I  do  not  think  so.  That  was  due  to  a  lot  of  hot  air 
well  applied,  and  if  they  had  an  election  this  month  they  would  knock 
most  of  that  political  "  flu." 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  Nevada,  where  I  have  visited,  they  have  to  strug- 
gle very  hard  to  supply  their  homes  with  the  necessaries  of  life,  and 
it  takes  all  they  can  raise  or  make  to  keep  the  wolf  from  the  door. 


142  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Those  farmers  are  deprived  of  some  of  the  necessaries  of  life  and 
are  losing  some  of  the  pleasures  of  life. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  But  they  are  unfortunate  in  being  located  in  the 
Avrong  part  of  the  country. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Is  there  room  enough  for  all  of  us  in  your  part  of 
the  country? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Well,  if  the  Government  will  open  it  up  there 
might  be. 

Mr.  MAYS.  How  much  do  you  advance  the  settler  for  buildings? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  It  costs  about  $3,500  cash  investment  for  me  to  start 
a  man  on  a  half  section  of  land. 

Mr.  MAYS.  In  buildings  and  equipment? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Just  what  does  that  include? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  It  will  cost  about  $2,500  for  the  buildings.  In  the 
first  place  you  build  a  house  for  the  housewife  and  she  will  never 
kick. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Will  you  describe  those  buildings? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  For  the  Russians  I  built  a  house  18  by  24,  with  three 
rooms,  which  is  all  they  need  for  a  small  family. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  did  that  cost? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  About  $800.  I  put  a  good  cellar  and  foundation 
under  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  did  you  soil  them  for? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  I  sold  them  at  just  what  they  cost.  The  money  I 
make  is  what  I  get  on  the  acreage  of  the  farm.  I  do  not  get  much 
from  that,  but  still  it  is  a  good  price. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  sell  it  at  cost  price? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  I  sell  the  farmer  a  farm — th  >y  are  all  alike — and  I 
say:  "  Xow.  Bill,  I  want  so  much  money  on  this — so  much  on  build- 
ings and  improvements,"  and  they  usually  pay  me  from  $500  to 
$1,000  on  the  farm.  They  pay  that  right  down.  Then,  I  make  an 
additional  agreement  that  he  is  to  farm  a  certain  part  of  the  farm 
under  my  direction  and  bring  so  much  a  year:  and  I  put  in  the 
contract  that  I  am  to  place  so  much  buildings  on  the  property ;  I 
ship  the  lumber  there,  he  puts  up  the  buildings  and  gets  them  for 
cost. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  how  many  farmers  could  you  locate  in  this  way 
in  the  country  that  you  know,  if  3-011  had  the  money  means  to  do  it? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  It  is  unlimited. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Just  give  a  rough  guess — 500,000? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Oh,'  no:  not  500,000.  I  would  not  say  that.  That 
would  be  taking  an  awfully  big  leap. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well,  how  many  farmers  could  you  locate  under  the 
conditions  you  have  described  to  the  committee? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Well,  with  capital  enough  behind  it,  I  could  put 
10.000  farmers  in  South  Dakota. 

Mr.  RAKKR.  Anywhere  else  than  South  Dakota? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Well,  40,000  in  Montana. 

Mr.  RAKI.U.  That  is  00,000.  How  many  more? 

Mr.  Ih.viT.i;.  If  you  carry  out  the  irrigation  projects  yon  have 
in  NYashington.  you  could  put  100,000  people  there. 

Mr.   RAKER.  That  makes  160,000  people. 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  143 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  how  long  would  it  take  to  put  them  on  that  land 
in  those  States? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  That  would  be  an  engineering  proposition.  I  do  not 
know  how  long  it  would  take  to  put  the  water  in  Montana.  In  Da- 
kota we  have  the  water  and  you  could  put  them  on  as  fast  as  they 
came. 

Mr.  BAKER.  If  you  had  the  water,  then,  you  could  provide  imme- 
diately for  160,000  people? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  I  think  so.  I  know  I  could  take  care  of  10,000 
farmers  in  the  year  in  South  Dakota  if  I  had  the  capital  and  if  the 
Government  would  open  up  Indian  reservations  and  put  cheaper 
land  on  the  market. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Do  you  have  any  difficulty  in  finding  men  willing  to 
take  advantage  of  these  oportunities? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  No,  sir;  when  you  get  one  colony  started,  they  will 
keep  coming. 

Mr.  SMITH.  And  you  do  not  have  to  do  any  advertising? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  No,'  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Why  can  not  this  scheme  be  carried  on  more  ex- 
tensively ? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Because  men  of  money  have  got  into  the  habit  of 
putting  their  money  into  stocks  and  bonds  and  things  of  that  kind 
that  they  can  turn  into  cash  at  any  time ;  they  are  speculators.  If  a 
man  buys  a  piece  of  land  he  can  not  put  it  on  the  board  of  trade 
and  get  his  money  back  on  it  when  he  wants  it.  The  rural  credit 
system  of  North  and  South  Dakota  is  a  great  help  to  the  farmer,  as 
well  as  the  Federal  loan  banks.  They  have  helped  a  wonderful  lot 
of  people  get  cheap  money. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  it  your  belief  now  that  there  should  be  a  provision 
in  the  proposed  legislation  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  should 
have  the  powder  to  go  out  and  select  tracts  of  land  wherever  he  could 
find  it  and  put  soldiers  on  it? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  I  think  he  should  have  that  power.  I  think  there 
should  be  a  commission  in  each  State,  under  the  direction  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Interior,  to  -go  out  and  investigate  inquiries  that  come 
to  it,"  and  take  the  people  out  and  put  them  on  the  farms. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  wish  you  would  give  us  the  other  items  of  im- 
provements. You  have  given  us  about  $800  for  the  house.  What 
about  the  other  items  ? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  The  barn  and  chicken  house  will  cost  about  $800 
more.  The  well  will  cost  him,  properly  fixed  up,  with  windmill  and 
tank,  $200.  Where  he  does  the  work  himself  the  fence  will  cost  him 
about  $100  a  mile — a  three-wire  fence. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  anything  more  ? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  That  is  all  in  the  way  of  improvements.  Then  there 
is  the  cattle  to  be  furnished.  I  never  furnish  a  man  less  than  four 
cows  if  he  has  160  acres,  and  if  he  has  320  acres  I  give  him  10  cows, 
charge  him  7  per  cent  interest,  and  he  gives  a  mortgage  on  the  in- 
crease. Altogether,  it  will  run  from  $3,000  to  $3,500  for  buildings, 
improvements,  and  cattle. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  That  would  not  apply  to  a  40-acre  tract  in  an  irriga- 
tion district  where  they  were  growing  alfalfa? 
133319—19 10 


144  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Well,  40  acres  of  land  is  too  small  to  handle  unless 
you  are  raising  vegetables ;  you  would  be  making  hand  farmers  and 
peasants.  That  was  the  trouble  on  the  Huntley  project  in  Montana ; 
they  had  to  increase  the  acreage  before  they  could  make  a  percentage. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  But  you  are  speaking  of  rough  land  and  not  irri- 
gated land  in  Idaho  and  California? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Oh,  yes :  of  course,  for  what  they  raise  in  those  States 
40  acres  would  be  plenty. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  I  think  it  is  well  known  that  in  the  far  West  40- 
acres  will  support  a  family  very  well. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Yes,  sir.  But  what  the  Government  ought  to  do  is 
to  get  the  soldiers  out  where  they  raise  corn  and  grain  and  alfalfa,, 
because  if  you  put  too  many  on  small  farms  you  will  not  get  enough 
for  your  produce. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  I  was  not  speaking  of  produce;  I  was  speaking  of 
alfalfa  where  they  have  several  crops  a  year. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Alfalfa  is  all  right  for  40  acres. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  familiar  with  certain  resolutions  passed 
by  the  National  Grange,  Patrons  of  Husbandry,  last  Novemberr 
against  this  plan? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  No,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  would  like  to  read  them  to  you  and  get  your 
opinion  on  them.  This  is  headed :  "  Farms  for  Soldiers  "  and  reads : 

We  oppose  the  proposed  plan  of  reclaiming  swamp  mid  arid  lands  for  return- 
ing soldiers,  as  unsound,  impractical,  and  detrimental  to  the  interest  of  the/ 
Nation  and  agriculture. 

That  part  is  directed  against  the  reclamation  of  swamp  land  and 
the  irrigation  of  arid  land. 
The  next  sentence  reads: 

There  is  an  abundance  of  untenanted  farms  near  market  centers  to  supply 
all  soldiers  who  may  wish  farm  land.  The  Government  should  meet  this  need 
in  this  way,  so  that  they  may  become  self-supporting  and  useful  without  waste- 
and  delay. 

I  would  like  to  get  your  views  upon  that  resolution. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  That  was  passed  by  the  National  Grange? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  I  think  the  idea  they  had  in  their  head  was  that  they 
did  not  want  to  increase  production  and  lower  prices.  That  is  the 
only  reason  for  passing  such  a  resolution. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  think  that  theory  is  Avell  founded,  then — 
that  it  will  increase  production  and  decrease  prices? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  No,  I  do  not  think  it  will  increase  production  be- 
yond consumption,  because  I  believe  increased  consumption  will 
absorb  increased  production.  In  10  years  I  do  not  think  this  country 
will  be  exporting  a  bushel  of  wheat  or  a  pound  of  beef. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  resolution  which  I  have  read  says:  "There 
is  an  abundance  of  untenated  farms  near  market  centers  to  supply 
all  soldiers  who  may  wish  farm  lands."  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there 
is  an  abundance  of  untenanted  farms.  That  is  true,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Well,  there  may  be,  but  I  do  not  think  so.  I  think 
that  is  more  theory  than  fact.  You  talk  about  the  abandoned  farms 
in  the  State  of  New  York.  I  do  not  think  there  are  as  many  there 
as  the  general  public  believes.  Most  of  it  is  land  that  is  too  rocky 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  145 

for  cultivation  and  should  never  have  been  attempted  as  farm  land. 
The  CHAIRMAN.  Then  the  grange  passed  this  resolution : 

Land  tenantry  is  increasing;  farm  ownership  is  concentrating  in  the  hands 
of  wealthy  land  holders,  and  abandoned  farms  are  becoming  too  common.  Legis- 
lation should  be  devised  to  encourage  farm-home  owning  and  to  discourage  land 
siteculation  and  tenantry. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  That  is  just  what  I  am  advocating:  Put  these  people 
on  the  land  and  let  them  own  their  homes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  resolution  preceding  that  says  this: 

r.ctter  farm  credit.  Every  possible  means  should  be  provided  to  assist  men 
of  character  and  naming  to  secure  farm  homes  and  establish  a  system  of  per- 
sonal credit  for  the  purpose  of  increasing  farm  ownership.  To  this  end  we 
favor  sm-li  amendment  of  the  land-bank  law  as  will  extend  its  benefits  more 

widely. 

Mr.  H INTER.  Well,  the  land  bank  law  refers  to  the  Federal  loan 
bank,  does  it  not? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  assume  so. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  That  is  working  out  fine  in  the  Northwest.  A  man 
can  get  a  loan  on  his  property  maturing  in  30  years. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  our  object,  really,  is  to  carry  out  the  pur- 
poses of  these  two  last  resolutions  I  have  read — to  increase  farm-home 
ownership. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  That  is  the  way  I  understand  it. 

.Mr.  TILLMAN.  I  wish  you  would  go  into  more  detail  about  what 
you  do  for  the  settler.  You  say  you  build  him  a  house,  and  barn, 
and  chicken  house,  and  then  he  has  trees  and  a  garden  ? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  After  we  get  the  land  broken  and  under  cultivation 
they  have  nice  gardens.  The  Russians  have  very  nice  gardens. 

.Mr.  T i LI. MAX.  You  believe  in  encouraging  that? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  TILLMAN.  Your  theory  is  that  he  is  going  to  remain  there,  as 
a  fixture  on  the  land? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Yes,  sir;  when  he  goes  there  he  expects  to  stay  there, 
and  he  does.  I  know  some  people  who  own  the  same  farm  they 
owned  30  years  ago  and  they  spend  their  winters  in  California ;  their 
farm  is  paying  about  20  per  cent  dividend.  I  have  seen  an  Ameri- 
can come  into  Dakota  with  his  family,  take  a  preemption  and  home- 
stead, build  up  a  good  farm,  and  when  his  boys  grew  up  they  went 
into  town  to  work  in  the  bank  or  in  a  store,  and  a  foreigner  would 
come  along  and  buy  the  old  man  out.  Now,  these  boys  are  living 
from  hand  to  mouth,  hanging  on  by  their  eyebrows,  while  the  old 
man  who  held  on  to  the  farm  is  rich.  I  have  a  lot  of  American  boys 
on  my  farms  and  they  are  all  making  good,  bringing  up  their  fami- 
lies and  showing  themselves  to  be  good  citizens.  There  is  no  better 
fanner  in  the  world  than  the  American  farmer. 

Mr.  TILLMAN.  Have  you  had  any  experience  with  the  fellows  who 
come  from  town  with  no  knowledge  of  farming,  who  have  never  been 
on  a  farm  \ 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Xo:  I  never  had.  But  with  the  county  agent  to  in- 
struct him  in  the  farm  business,  there  is  no  reason  why  he  should  not 
make  good  if  he  wants  to  stick  there.  I  think,  though,  you  will  find 
there  are  very  few  people  who  want  to  leave  the  cities  now.  The 
majority  of  the  men  }TOII  get  on  those  new  farms  are  the  farmer  boy. 


146  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

For  instance,  there  is  a  man  in  Illinois  who  has  a  farm  worth  $300 
an  acre.  He  has  five  boys  and  he  can  not  buy  all  of  them  farms ;  he 
can  not  break  up  his  farm  for  them  and  at  the  present  prices  those 
boys  can  not  buy  farms,  and  if  they  want  to  stay  on  a  farm  they  have 
got  to  go  West  and  take  up  one  of  these  projects. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  understood  you  to  say  a  while  ago  that  you  could 
make  a  success  with  the  inexperienced  man,  the  man  who  had  no 
experience  in  farming? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  I  think  you  can,  because  it  is  only  a  question  of  being 
willing  to  work.  It  is  a  simple  matter  in  my  country.  It  might  not 
be  so  in  the  irrigated  districts  in  the  West,  because  lie  might  have  to 
have  more  instruction.  But  in  my  section  of  the  West  any  man  who 
is  willing  and  can  work  intelligently  can  make  a  success  of  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  want  to  ask  you  about  this  man  that  you  sell  this  land 
to.  About  how  much  do  you  get  in  advance  when  he  takes  it? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Where  1  buy  Indian  land  I  pay  $15  an  acre  and  I 
make  a  quarter  payment  down,  25  per  cent,  and  the  balance  continues 
over  four  years.  If  I  get  a  fellow  who  will  come  down  and  occupy 
that  land  1  sell  it  at  an  advance  of  from  $2.50  to  $5  an  acre. 

Mr.  BAKER.  You  think  that  is  fair,  considering  that  you  are  han- 
dling the  land  ? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Yes,  sir;  I  do. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Will  you  give  your  experience  to  the  committee  on 
this  subject?  In  most  all  these  lands  only  about  one-third  or  one- 
fourth  of  it  is  under  cultivation  when  you  sell  it  ? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Well,  practically  none  of  it  is  under  cultivation  when 
I  sell  it,  but  it  grows  up. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  want  you  to  state  whether  it  is  better  to  have  the 
farm  all  cultivated,  with  fences,  buildings,  and  roads,  before  you  put 
the  man  on,  or  do  you  think  it  is  advisable  to  put  up  a  house  and  barn 
and  other  buildings,  and  furnish  the  machinery,  and  then  let  the  man 
work  out  his  own  destiny,  taking  10  acres  this  year  and  10  acres  next 
year,  bringing  his  family  there  and  developing  it  himself,  as  against 
developing  it  all  at  once  and  putting  him  on  a  highly  developed 
farm?  What  is  your  theory? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  My  theory  is  just  what  my  practice  is.  I  make  that 
fellow  go  to  work  the  minute  I  sell  the  farm  to  him.  Of  course.  I 
would  not  break  a  farm  and  put  it  all  under  cultivation  before  I 
turned  it  over  to  him. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  what  I  want  to  know.  Before  a  man  goes  on 
a  farm  with  his  wife  and  family,  do  you  believe  it  is  better  husbandry 
to  build  the  farm  and  have  it  ready  for  occupation.  so  that  there 
will  be  no  grubbing  of  stumps  or  plowing,  or  would  you  have  it  de- 
veloped gradually? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  I  would  make  him  develop  it  himself.  I  would  gi  re 
him  a  start  and  let  him  work  out  his  own  salvation. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  think  that  is  the  better  plan  ? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  as  to  the  location  of  the  land;  would  you  make 
a  center  of  the  community,  say  10  miles  square,  and  have  a  renter 
where  he  would  live  and  work  his  farm  from  that  renter,  or  would 
you  put  him  on  the  farm  like  we  work  farms  in  this  country? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  I  would  put  him  on  a  separate  farm  and  keep  him 
as  far  away  from  the  town  as  you  can  get  him. 


HOMES   FOE  SOLDIERS.  147 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  want  to  know  why 

Mr.  ELSTON  (interposing).  Mr.  Raker,  that  has  been  gone  into 
very  thoroughly  this  morning. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Not  by  this  man. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well,  let  his  answer  my  question. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  I  think  he  has  answered  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  No,  he  has  not. 

Mr.  VAILE.  That  was  gone  into  when  you  were  not  in  the  room, 
Judge.  Mr.  Hunter  developed  that  before  you  came  in. 

Mr.  HUNTER.  I  think  it  would  be  better  to  put  him  out  by  himself 
and  let  him  develop  his  own  farm,  because  otherwise  I  do  not  believe 
you  will  have  a  success. 

Mr.  SMITH.  How  long  on  the  average  does  it  take  these  men  to 
complete  the  payment  of  their  obligations — three  or  four  years  ? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  Oh,  yes;  more  than  that. 

Mr.  SMITH.  About  how  long? 

Mr.  HUNTER.  With  ordinary  crops  an  average  man  will  pay  out 
in  from  6  to  10  years. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  have  no  ax  to  grind  in  this  matter  in  any  way 
at  all.  I  just  want  to  tell  you  what  has  been  done.  I  thank  you 
very  much  for  this  opportunity. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  is  obliged  to  you.  We  will  now 
hear  from  Mr.  Gibson  who,  I  understand,  represents  the  Michigan 
Land  Settlement  Commission.  Mr.  Gibson,  will  you  state  your 
name,  occupation,  and  just  what  that  commission  is? 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  JOHN  I.  GIBSON,  REPRESENTING  THE 
MICHIGAN  LAND  SETTLEMENT   COMMISSION. 

Mr.  GIBSON.  My  name  is  John  I.  Gibson.  I  am  a  member  of  the 
commission  appointed  by  the  governor  of  Michigan  to  study  the 
question  of  soldier  land  settlement  as  proposed  by  Secretary  of 
Interior  Lane,  and  to  outline  a  general  land  settlement  policy  ap- 

flicable  to  returning  soldiers,  sailors,  marines,  and  others.  Besides, 
am  secretary  of  the  Western  Michigan  Development  Bureau,  a 
Michigan  corporation  not  for  pecuniary  profit  which  has  been  in  the 
colonization  business  for  about  10  years  in  the  cut-over  land  region  of 
northwestern  Michigan.  I  will  not  take  the  time  of  the  committee 
to  make  any  lengthy  statement  because  I  think  the  ground  has  been 
covered  quite  thoroughly  already.  I  wish,  though,  in  the  first  place, 
to  take  issue  with  the  last  speaker  with  reference  to  what  he  said 
about  community  settlements.  As  far  as  the  cut-over  lands  of  the 
northern  part  of  Michigan  are  concerned,  I  do  not  think  his  views 
would  hold  good.  I  favor  community  settlement  as  against  the 
segregated  unit  plan.  There  are  in  the  United  States  200,000,000 
acres  of  <  ut-over  land  that  are  suitable  for  agricultural  develop- 
ment, and  this  great  area  of  land  is  increasing  at  the  rate  of  15,000.000 
acres  a  year.  It  will  perhaps  convey  to  you  some  idea  of  this  vastness 
of  the  area  when  I  tell  you  that  in  order  to  go  over  this  200,000,000- 
acre  tract  and  cross  each  of  the  312,500  sections  once  and  walking 
20  miles  every  day  for  365  days  every  year  would  require  43  years. 
If  one  shoulct  go  in  a  Ford  and  cover  100  sections  a.  dav  instead  of 


148  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

20  it  would  take  8  years  and  7  months  to  get  back  home,  barring 
tire  trouble.  We  have  in  northern  Michigan  11,686,000  acres  of  cut- 
over  land  and  2,947,4;39  acres  of  swamp  land.  The  utilization  of 
this  land  is  a  matter  which  vitally  concerns  not  only  the  State  and 
the  Nation  but  also  the  entire  world. 

The  State  land  commission  appointed  by  our  governor  made  a 
report  on  March  12,  1919,  which  was  printed.  I  am  under  the  im- 
pression that  copies  of  this  report  were  mailed  to  the  members  of 
this  Public  Lands  Committee.  I  will  be  glad  to  furnish  a  copy  to 
any  member  who  hasn't  got  one.  Our  State  land  commission  and 
the  western  Michigan  Development  Bureau  are  heartily  in  favor 
of  the  Mondell  bill.  We  have  been  trying  to  get  settlers  on  our  cut- 
over  lands  for  about  10  years  and  it  is  our  experience  that  segregated 
settlement  is  a  slow  and  unsatisfactory  method.  To  put  a  man  out 
in  the  wilderness  and  leave  him  there  to  clear  the  stumps  and  make 
a  farm  home  without  the  help  and  cooperation  of  neighbors  is 
hardly  fair  and  is  one  of  the  prime  reasons  why  we  have  so  many 
failures.  The  plan  of  the  bill  under  discussion  is  more  feasible  and 
likely  to  succeed,  besides  it  will  be  an  object  lesson  showing  the 
value  of  cooperation  and  teamwork  in  clearing  the  land  and  making 
partially  prepared  farms  with  the  aid  of  suitable  machinery.  In 
Wisconsin  they  are  sending  out  land-clearing  trains  to  show  the 
farmers  how  to  clear  the  land  in  a  large  way.  at  a  greatly  reduced 
cost.  With  our  present  method  of  settling  the  cut-over  land  of 
Michigan  we  would  not  finish  the  job  until  the  crack  of  doom. 

The  CHAIKMAX.  What  does  it  cost  to  clear  the  land? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Approximately,  from  $15  to  $35  an  acre. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  the  stumpage  per  ucre? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  It  varies  greatly,  but  taking  good,  bad.  and  indiffer- 
ent, the  pine  would  run  from  fen  to  twelve  thousand,  and  the  hard- 
wood nine  to  ten  thousand.  The  land  can  be  bought  for  from  $5 
an  acre  up. 

Mr.  Jonxsox.  Do  you  utilize  the  pine  stumps  you  pull  from  the 
land?  . 

Mr.  GIBSOX.  Xot  now.  Several  unsuccessful  attempts  have  been 
made  to  extract  turpentine  from  the  pine  stumps,  but  it  couldn't  be 
made  to  pay. 

Mr.  Jonxsox.  They  are  doing  it  very  successfully  in  my  State. 

Mr.  GIBSOX.  Yes;  I  know  you  are,  but  for  some  reason  or  other  we 
have  not  been  able  to  produce  the  turpentine  as  cheaply  as  you  can 
in  the  South. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  They  are  making  rosin  and  turpentine. 

Mr.  GIBSOX.  Yes;  and  I  know  that  some  by-products  made  from 
the  pine  stumps  earned  large  profits  during  the  war. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  What  percentage  of  the  cut-over  land  in  your  state 
will  make  good  farm  land? 

Mi\  GIBSOX.  I  should  figure  approximately  20  per  cent  is  light  soil 
jack  pinelaud  and  about  75  per  cent  will  grow  successfully  the  crops 
that  are  suited  to  the  climate. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Would  you  have  to  make  that  good  by  fertili/er  or 
would  you  consider  it  workable  land? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Ye--:  commercial  fertilizer  is  a  valuable  help,  but 
there  are  thousands  of  acres  of  viririn  soil  in  northern  Michigan 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  149 

that  will  produce  crops  at  a  profit  without  the  application  of  ferti- 
lizer or  manure.  It  is  not  generally  known  that  some  of  our  pine- 
land-  which  were  considered  worthless  is  where  we  now  have  some  of 
our  best  orchards.  The  light-soil  land  in  most  cases  needs  either  marl 
or  lime  applied  to  sweeten  the  soil.  After  the  acidity  has  been  re- 
moved from  the  soil  the  best  method  is  to  plant  some  of  the  legumes, 
such  as  sweet  clover,  hairy  vetch,  alfalfa,  or  cowpeas,  which,  as  you 
know,  have  colonies  of  bacteria  on  their  roots  which  feed  on  nitrogen 
and  have  the  power  to  take  the  free  nitrogen  that  is  so  abundant  in 
the  air  and  fix  it  in  the  soil.  Xitrogen  is  what  this  kind  of  soil  needs, 
and  in  order  to  get  humus  into  the  soil  enabling  it  to  better  retain 
moisture  these  leguminous  crops  are  plowed  under  green.  I  think 
the  time  is  coming  soon,  as  stated  by  the  witness  who  preceded  me, 
•when  we  will  have  all  we  can  do  to  feed  our  own  people.  The  last 
census  showed  that  the  population  increased  at  the  rate  of  one  mil- 
lion a  year,  so  that  by  the  year  1930  we  will  have  a  population  of 
about  125.000,000  and'  unless  we  increase  the  area  of  cultivated  land 
faster  than  we  are  doing  now  we  will  require  a  Hoover  to  ration  us 
and  white  bread  will  disappear  from  the  table  of  the  ordinary  man. 
The  population  of  this  country  is  increasing  nearly  twice  as  fast  as 
the  cultivated  land  area,  according  to  recent  statistics. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  How  is  your  Michigan  delegation  in  Congress?  Are 
they  in  favor  of  this  measure  ? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  I  believe  most  of  them  are,  but  some  of  them  have  not 
expressed  themselves  to  me.  I  wish  to  call  attention  to  some  of  the 
objections  that  have  been  raised  to  putting  soldiers  and  sailors  on 
the  land,  particularly  the  one  of  overproduction,  which  the  chair- 
man called  attention  to  in  reading  the  resolutions  of  the  National 
Grange.  By  the  way.  I  might  say  here  that  the  Michigan  Business 
Farmer,  which  is  the  official  organ  of  the  "  Gleaners"  had  an  editorial 
in  the  last  issue  in  favor  of  the  national  soldier  settlement  act. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  that  the  State  grange  paper? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  No :  it  is  the  organ  of  the  State  Gleaners.  The  grange 
paper,  the  Michigan  Farmer,  is  also  in  favor  of  the  bill.  The  over- 
production objection  is  something  of  a  bugaboo,  because,  as  I  have 
said,  the  population  is  rapidly  increasing  and  production  is  not  keep- 
ing pace.  The  statement  was  made  not  long  since  by  Wallace's 
Farmer  that  if  the  amount  of  nitrogen  potassium  and  phosphorus 
actually  used  in  growing  eight  of  the  leading  crops  of  Iowa  last 
year  were  figured  at  the  regular  prices  at  which  they  were  sold  dur- 
ing 1918.  it  would  be  found  that  these  eight  principal  crops  had  re- 
moved from  the  soil  of  that  State  these  elements  to  the  value  of  $216,- 
000.000  or.  to  put  it  another  way,  it  cost  Iowa  the  equivalent  of  $216-, 
000.000  worth  of  fertilizer  to  produce  eight  of  its  leading  crops  last 
year.  When,  in  addition  to  this,  the  increase  in  tenant  farming  and 
the  exodus  from  the  country  to  the  city  is  taken  into  consideration,  it 
seems  to  me  the  danger  of  overproduction  of  farm  crops  is  a  remote 
contingency. 

Mr.  XICHOI.S.  Referring  to  Mr.  Taylor's  question  about  Michigan.  I 
will  inform  Mr.  Taylor  that  most  of  the  Michigan  delegation  in  Con- 
gress are  in  favor  of  some  such  proposition  as  this. 

Mi-.  TATLOR.  I  am  glad  to  hear  it.  because  they  are  a  very  strong 
delegation.  I  hope  they  are  all  in  favor  of  it. 


150  HOMES  FOE   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  did  not  complete  your  answer  about  the  land 
being  sold  for  $150  an  acre.  You  say  you  grew  fruit  on  it  ? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Yes,  sir;  I  grew  peaches,  cherries,  apples,  and  some 
small  fruits.  It  would  be  hard  to  make  a  living  on  20  acres  of  light 
soil  land  even  after  it  had  been  brought  to  a  proper  condition  of  tilth, 
unless  one  practiced  intensive  farming  and  grew  garden  truck  or 
fruit.  You  may  not  be  aware  that  our  western  Michigan  "  Sunny- 
ripe  "  apples  are  the  best  in  the  world. 

Mr.  EI^STON.  You  were  about  to  express  an  opinion  with  regard  to 
the  community  plan  of  farming  as  against  the  isolated  plan.  What 
is  your  idea  ? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  My  experience  during  the  past  10  years  with  the  in- 
dividual method  has  convinced  me  that  the  community  plan  is  the 
best  for  cut-over  land,  and  I  am  in  favor  of  it,  and  so  is  our  State 
land  commission  and  the  Western  Michigan  Development  Bureau, 
both  of  which  I  represent. 

Mr.  VAILE.  In  favor  of  what  ? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Of  the  community  plan,  as  applied  to  cut-over  land. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  community  plan? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  I  mean  the  plan  outlined  in  the  Mondell  bill.  I  would 
like  to  suggest,  though,  that  in  some  cases  the  unit  be  reduced  to 
50  families  with  80  acres  each,  instead  of  100  families.  It  is  rather  a 
difficult  matter  to  get  10,000  acres  of  good  land  in  a  single  unit. 

Mr.  VAILE.  When  you  say  you  are  in  favor  of  the  community 
plan,  do  you  mean  that  you  are  in  favor  of  a  common  enterprise  in 
clearing  stumpage,  or,  in  the  case  of  the  West,  irrigation,  or  would 
you  go  further  than  that  and  advocate  living  together  in  some  com- 
munity center? 

Mi-.  GIBSON.  Yes.  I  favor  a  common  enterprise,  but  not  the  col- 
lecting the  soldier  farmers  in  villages  as  is  done  on  the  continent  of 
Europe. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Then  tell  us  how  and  why  and  in  what  way. 

Mr.  GIBSON.  The  idea  has  been  expressed  that  farm  life  nowa- 
days is  not  isolated,  but  notwithstanding  the  telephone,  rural  free 
delivery,  good  roads,  and  the  Ford  car  there  is  still  a  good  deal  of 
lonesomeness  on  the  farm,  especially  in  sparsely  settled  localities. 
I  believe  the  neighbors  and  the  community  life  would  be  a  great  help 
in  holding  people  on  the  farms,  especially  the  returned  soldiers  and 
sailors. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  do  not  understand  the  community  settlement 
as  holding  the  people  in  a  town,  but  simply  having  a  public  hall 
where  they  can  meet  and  hold 

Mr.  GIBSON  (interposing).  Moving  pictures,  say,  and  a  place  where 
they  could  hold  meetings. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  I  do  not  understand  you  to  say  that  the  Gov- 
ernment should  supply  moving  pictures  to  these  farmers. 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Oh,  no;  just  a  place  where  they  could  hold  community 
meetings. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Simply  a  common  meeting  place? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Yes;  I  think  so. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  it  is  all  right  to  have  a  community  hull, 
but  I  would  not  think  of  moving  pictures.  How  long  have  you  lived 
in  Michigan? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  151 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Off  and  on  since  1889. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  observed  whether  or  not  these  in- 
dividual farmers  live  on  separate  farms  or  in  settlements  out  there — 
do  they  live  in  town  and  go  out  to  their  lot  and  farm  it  ? 

Mr.  'GIBSON.  None  that  I  know  of. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  are  none  of  that  kind  of  community  settle- 
ments ? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  None  that  I  know  of. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  are  you  familiar  with  the  French,  the 
Italian,  and  the  Belgium  community  settlements? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  No ;  but  I  am  familial'  with  the  New  Zealand  settle- 
ment plan,  because  I  lived  there. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Let  us  talk  about  the  ones  we  know  about.  I  do 
not  care  to  go  into  the  New  Zealand  proposition  at  this  particular 
time. 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Although  I  have  been  on  the  European  Continent,  I 
am  not  familiar  with  the  present  farming  practiced  there. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  not? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  you  do  not  want  the  community  settlement 
and  development  of  the  farming  lands  in  this  country  on  a  line  like 
that  in  France  or  Italy,  do  you  1 

Mr.  GIBSON.  No ;  not  that  kind  of  peasantry  plan. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  mean  you  want  the  farmers  to  live  inde- 
pendently on  their  individual  tracts,  is  that  right? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Yes ;  but  have  a  community  center  to  which  they  can 
come  if  they  desire.  That  is  what  I  had  in  mind. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  the  cooperative  work  you  are  speaking  of  is 
development  where  they  all  get  together  and  get  a  large  outfit  and 
equipment  to  clear  land? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Build  the  roads  and  get  things  to  going,  so  that  they 
can  get  their  products  to  market,  and  all  that  kind  of  thing. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  you  do  not  mean  to  put  them  all  in  the  town 
and  let  them  live  there  and  have  their  homes  there  and  then  farm 
their  land  from  that  town? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Gibson,  you  said  you  desired  to  reply  to  some 
objections. 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Yes.  I  have  answered  one,  with  regard  to  the  over 
production.  Another  objection  raised  was  this.  I  said  to  one  Mem- 
ber of  Congress  that  I  thought  it  was  our  job  to  feed  the  world,  and 
he  replied  that  he  was  through  with  that  charity  business;  we  had 
done  enough  of  it.  I  did  not  mean  that  we  are  to  feed  the  world  and 
not  get  any  pay  for  it.  I  believe  in  feeding  the  world  and  being  paid 
for  it,  either  in  money  or  exchange  of  <roods:  this  will  make  cargoes 
for  our  American  ships  and  help  to  develop  our  export  trade.  Take 
my  own  case.  I  have  exported  apples  to  Great  Britain  but  I  was  never 
able  to  ship  one  car  of  apples  in  an  American  bottom — it  was  always 
a  British  ship.  Now.  we  have  got  the  ships  and  it  is  up  to  us  to  pro- 
vide the  cargoes  to  support  our  new  merchant  marine. 

Then  there  was  another  objection,  viz,  that  few  if  any  of  the  re- 
turning soldiers  and  sailors  wanted  to  take  up  farming  as  a  per- 
manent occupation. 


152  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  was  talking  to  a  Michigan  farmer  here  a  couple  of 
months  ago.  He  had  raised  many  tons  of  potatoes.  They  were 
worth  out  there  between  50  and  GO  cents  a  bushel,  while  they  were 
selling  down  here  for  $8  or  $9 — say  $5  a  bushel — while  the  farmers 
were  depressed  because  they  could  not  get  enough  for  their  labor 
and  products. 

Mr.  GIBSON.  We  are  solving  that  largely  by  cooperative  marketing 
associations.  We  have  one  such  association  in  western  Michigan  that 
shipped  this  last  season  about  1,800  care  of  potatoes  and  sold  them 
at  a  price  that  brought  the  growers  satisfactory  returns.  Of  course, 
potatoes  have  brought  good  prices  this  year,  but  we  are  advocating, 
Mr.  Chairman,  the  growing  of  less  beans  and  potatoes  and  more  live 
stock.  Live  stock  is  the  foundation  of  all  successful  farming:  and 
we  have  it  on  the  authority  of  Mi-.  Marshall,  the  head  of  the  Animal 
Husbandry  Division  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  that  we  have 
the  last  cheap  grassland  in  the  world,  in  the  Great  Lake  States,  and 
grass,  as  you  all  know,  is  the  chief  factor  in  stock  raising.  Our 
object  in  this  is  to  have  something  to  put  back  into  the  soil  and  to 
secure  the  right  kind  of  crop  rotation. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  your  organization 
is  discouraging  the  production  of  beans  and  potatoes  and  other  prod- 
ucts of  that  kind  because  of  the  overproduction  in  Michigan  ? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Our  reasons,  largely,  are  these:  We  want  to  increase 
the  fertility  of  the  land  by  the  use  of  the  manure  from  the  cattle,  and 
as  I  have  said,  get  the  proper  crop  rotation,  and  also  because  we 
believe  that  our  farmers  have  been  producing  too  many  potatoes 
and  beans. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  mean  a  reduction  of  crops? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Yes;  a  reduction  of  these  two  particular  crops. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  you  may  go  ahead  and  I  will  not  interrupt  you 
any  more. 

Mr.  GIBSON.  In  my  opinion  the  objection  that  not  many  soldiers 
want  to  farm  is  not  valid,  because  in  my  visits  to  Camp  Custer  I 
found  quite  a  good  many  men  who  were  interested  in  farming  and 
who  wanted  to  know  what  we  had  to  offer  in  Michigan.  Another 
objection  which  was  raised  was  that  there  were  a  large  number  who 
made  a  failure  of  farming  in  northern  Michigan.  While  it  is  true 
that  we  have  some  failures  it  is  also  true  that  quite  a  good  many  new 
settlers  succeed.  There  are  several  reasons  for  the  failures.  The 
newcomers  sometimes  fall  into  the  hands  of  unscrupulous  real  estate 
dealers  who  sell  them  poor  land  and  charge  them  a  high  price  for  it. 
so  that  they  can  never  get  their  heads  above  water.  Then  there  is  the 
oft-repeated  mistake  of  putting  a  round  man  in  a  square  hole.  I 
agree  thoroughly  with  the  gentleman  who  preceded  me  when  he 
said  that  where  this  whole  proposition  is  most  likelv  to  fail  is  in  not 
making  the  proper  selection  of  the  men  to  go  on  the  land.  I  think 
that  is  the  most  important  thing  of  the  whole  proposition — the  se- 
lection of  the  men.  How  that  selection  should  be  made  I  am  not  pre- 
pared to  say. 

Another  reason  of  failure  is  the  lack  of  capital.  This  lack  is  pro- 
vided for  in  the  Mondell  bill.  I  think,  too,  there  ought  to  be  a  pro- 
vision in  this  bill  that  would  include  in  its  provisions  not  only  sol- 
diers and  sailors,  but  any  other  qualified  citizens  who  wished  to  take 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  153 

advantage  of  it,  giving  preference  to  the  soldiers  and  sailors.  I  am 
strongly  in  favor  of  this,  because  I  believe  that  every  American  citi- 
zen ought  to  be  given  an  opportunity  to  take  advantage  of  this 
opportunity  to  get  on  the  land.  The  prosperity  and  happiness  of 
the  State  and  of  the  Nation  depend  to  a  large  extent  on  the  number  of 
people  who  are  producers  of  food  and  raw  materials,  living  in  con- 
tentment and  well-being  on  the  land.  This  being  so,  land  settlement 
is  primarily  a  matter  of  public  concern. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Does  this  cut-over  land  have  to  be  drained? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  No:  a  great  deal  of  it  has  natural  drainage.  We  have 
some  swamj)  land,  though — nearly  3,000,000  acres,  about  half  of  which 
might  be  profitably  drained — it  would  cost  too  much  to  bring  the 
balance  of  the  swamp  land  into  cultivation. 

Mr.  SMITH.  What  is  the  cost  per  acre,  Mr.  Gibson,  of  the  reclama- 
tion of  this  cut-over  land  you  have  in  Michigan? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Clearing  would  cost  from  $15  to  $35  per  acre. 

Mr.  SMITH.  What  would  be  the  expense  of  preparing  it  for  cul- 
tivation? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  When  the  land  has  been  cleared  it  is  read}7  for  the 
plow. 

Mr.  SMITH.  What  does  it  cost  uncleared  ? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  $5  per  acre  up. 

Mr.  SMITH.  What  will  the  land  be  worth  after  clearing,  when  it 
is  ready  for  cultivation? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  From  $25  to  $50  per  acre. 

Mr.  SMITH.  About  the  actual  cost  of  reclamation? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  SMITH.  What  is  good  farm  land  worth  there  that  is  under 
cultivation  ? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  From  $30  an  acre  up,  depending  on  the  character  of 
the  soil,  the  location,  condition  of  buildings,  nearness  to  market,  con- 
dition of  roads,  etc. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Xow.  you  spoke  about  opening  the  lands  up  to  the  gen- 
eral public.  Do  you  not  think  it  would  be  better  to  have  future 
legislation,  should  it  be  found  there  are  not  sufficient  soldiers  to  take 
advantage  of  this  law,  rather  than  to  make  it  geperal  in  its  applica- 
tion now '. 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Perhaps  that  would  be  better.  I  did  not  think  of  that 
when  I  spoke  before. 

Mr.  SMITH.  In  two  or  three  years  from  now  ? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Yes;  after  we'  find  how  the  present  plan  works. 
Another  objection  which  was  raised  was  that  we  would  not  have 
soldiers  enough  to  go  on  the  land  after  they  had  returned  to  their 
home  places  and  were  absorbed  into  the  farms  and  industries  that 
they  left.  I  visited  Camp  Custer  several  times  and  showed  the  sol- 
diers moving  pictures  of  western  farm  scenes  and  talked  to  a  large 
number  of  the  men.  and  I  found  quite  a  number  of  them  anxious  to 
go  on  the  land,  so  1  think  there  are  more  soldiers  than  we  have  any 
idea  of  that  really  want  to  become  farmers. 

Mr.  SNELL.  You  say  you  are  connected  with  some  commission  in 
the  State? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Yes,  the  State  land  commissions. 

Mr.  SNELL.  By  whom  was  that  appointed? 


154  HOMES   FOE   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  GIBSON.  By  the  governor. 

Mr.  SNELL.  What  is  his  object? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  The  object  as  stated  in  the  printed  report  sent 
to  the  members  of  this  committee  is :  "  To  formulate  a  land  settle- 
ment policy  for  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines,  and  others." 

Mr.  SNELL.  For  the  purpose  of  inducing  the  settlement  of  the  cut- 
over  lands  in  your  State? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Yes,  and  especially  to  furnish  homes  and  congenial 
employment  for  our  returning  soldiers. 

Mr.  SNELL.  When  was  it  appointed? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  It  was  appointed  December  19,  1918. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Reverting  to  the  subject  of  which  you  were  speaking 
a  short  while  ago,  a  great  deal  of  the  land  there  in  Michigan  is,  by 
its  very  nature,  and  the  nature  of  the  soil,  particularly  adapted  to 
the  growing  of  potatoes  and  beans  and  that  sort  of  crops,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Yes,  that  is  true. 

Mr.  SNELL.  It  is  a  sandy  soil. 

Mr.  GIBSON.  It  is  not  all  sandy  soil  by  any  means.  That  is  a  point 
upon  which  most  people  have  an  erroneous  idea. 

Mr.  SNELL.  I  have  been  over  a  good  part  of  that  State. 

Mr.  GIBSON.  About  20  per  cent  of  the  land  of  northern  Michigan 
is  what  is  termed  jack  pine  plains. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Well,  you  take  land  in  the  northern  part  of  the  south- 
ern peninsula — it  is  practically  all  of  that  general  nature,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  No,  not  all,  but  a  good  deal  of  it  is  of  a  sandy  loam 
character.  Traveling  north  from  Grand  Rapids  on  gives  one  a 
wrong  impression  of  the  country,  because  the  railroads  run  along 
the  pine  ridges,  and  one  only  sees  for  the  most  part  the  poorest  kind 
of  sandy  land.  A  little  back  from  the  railroad  tracks,  on  either  side 
there  are  good  farms  and  large  areas  of  cleared  land. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Yes,  I  have  been  all  through  that  country.  But  you 
speak  of  land  of  that  character  when  you  refer  to  this  bill? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Yes,  sir.  I  refer  to  the  land  as  it  actually  is  a  variety 
of  soils. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Have  you  ever  stopped  to  consider  how  much  it  would 
cost  the  Public  Treasury  to  follow  out  this  subject? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  You  mean  what  it  would  cost  to  get  80  acres  into  shape 
in  Michigan? 

Mr.  SNELL.  The  question  is  how  much  money  would  it  take  to  do 
all  this  ?  This  bill  proposes  $500,000,000,  but  how  much  would  the 
aggregate  be? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Before  this  bill  was  introduced  I  thought  $100.000,000 
asked  for  by  the  previous  bill  was  a  great  deal  of  money,  and  that  it 
might  be  sufficient  to  carry  out  the  project. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Why  did  you  figure  so? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Because  I  figured  in  our  country  80  acres  can  be  pre- 
pared and  got  ready,  with  20  acres  brushed,  and  20  acres  cleared, 
fences  put  up,  barn  and  house  erected,  and  well  driven  for  from 
four  to  five  thousand  dollars. 

Mr.  SNKLL.  Well,  there  are  4,500.000  who  can  take  advantage  of 
this. 

Mr.  GIBSON.  I  do  not  think  there  would  be  so  many  as  that. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Well,  all  the  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  discharged 
could  take  advantage  of  it  if  they  cared  to.  You  ccrtainlv  must  hava 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  155 

investigated  the  entire  question  and  figured  about  what  proportion 
would  take  advantage  of  it. 

Mr.  GIBSON.  At  Camp  Custer  and  some  of  the  other  camps  I  found 
that  approximately  15  per  cent  of  the  men  who  wished  to  take  ad- 
vantage of  Secretary  Lane's  plan — 

Mr.  SNELL.  Of  the  men  in  the  camps  that  would  take  advantage 
of  it? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Where  do  they  come  from  mostly? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  The  men  I  talked  to  were  largely  from  overseas. 

Mr.  SNELL.  I  mean,  from  cities,  or  what  part  of  the  United  States? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  They  were  from  all  parts  of  the  United  States,  and 
some  from  Canada  ;  by  far  the  larger  number  had  either  been  brought 
up  on  a  farm  or  were  farmers'  sons,  or  had  some  experience  in  farm- 
ing. The  majority  of  those  who  expressed  a  desire  to  locate  in 
Michigan  were  Michiganders. 

Mr.  SNELL.  The  reason  I  am  asking  these  questions  is  that  we  want 
to  get  some  definite  idea  as  to  how  much  it  will  eventually  take  out 
of  the  Treasury  after  it  gets  started.  Have  you  made  any  investi- 
gation about  that  proposition  you  had? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  It  would  not  be  so  staggering  if  the  percentage  did 
not  run  above  15  per  cent,  and  besides  it  is  to  be  a  revolving  fund 
and  will  eventually  be  paid  back. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Well,  you  do  not  know.  I  thought  perhaps  you  had 
made  some  special  study  of  that.  You  say  you  are  in  favor  of  this 
bill,  and  the  knowledge  of  fairly  definite  'figures  as  to  its  operation 
is  one  of  the  elemental  things  to  be  considered  in  this  bill,  or  in  like 
legislation — the  estimation  of  what  it  is  going  to  cost  and  how  we 
are  going  to  pay  for  it ;  and,  while  the  scheme  may  be  good,  you  must 
consider  those  things. 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Yes,  we  have  considered  and  discussed  this  phase  of 
the  question  a  number  of  times,  but  it  is  difficult  to  arrive  at  any 
definite  conclusion  as  to  what  the  actual  cost  will  be,  but  so  long  as 
it  is  in  the  form  of  a  revolving  fund  the  total  cost  does  not  make  any 
material  difference. 

Mr.  SNELL.  In  other  words,  you  do  not  know  how  many  men  are 
going  to  take  advantage  of  it? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Not  definitely,  no.    I  guess  about  15  per  cent. 

Mr.  SNELL.  No :  and  there  is  no  wajT  we  can  find  out  either. 

Mr.  GIBSON.  I  do  not  think  so. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Did  not  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  Mr.  Lane,  say 
it  would  be  about  16  per  cent  who  would  take  advantage  of  it? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  When  I  made  my  estimate  of  15  per  cent  I  did  not 
know  that  Secretary  Lane  had  said  16  per  cent, 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Every  man  that  takes  advantage  of  it  puts  the  Gov- 
ernment that  much  ahead. 

Mr.  GIBSON.  And  the  world,  too. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  And  the  cost  factor,  no  matter  how  large  it  is,  how 
indefinite  it  is,  every  dollar  spent  in  this  proposition  will  eventually 
be  returned. 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Yes;  with  compound  interest. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  And  if  it  costs  $5,000.000,000  it  would  probably  be 
worth  twentv  times  that  to  this  country,  would  it  not? 


156  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  GIBSON.  That  is  my  opinion  of  the  matter. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  The  money  comes  back  after  40  years  at  a  low  rate 
of  interest  and  is  in  what" might  be  termed  a  revolving  fund,  and  is 
a  great  American  developing  proposition,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Yes;  and  at  the  same  time  furnishing  work  and  homes 
for  the  soldiers.  I  had  a  little  experience  in  New  Zealand  when  this 
was  an  untried  scheme.  It  worked  out  there  fairly  successfully. 
They  made  some  mistakes,  of  course,  which  we  are  taking  advantage 
of.  The  Government  cut  up  the  large  sheep  ranches  into  small  hold- 
ings and  assisted  all  who  were  qualified  to  take  up  these  small  farms. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  It  has  been  of  inestimable  value  to  them,  has  it  not  ? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Yes;  it  helped  to  make  New  Zealand  prosperous  and 
its  people  happy. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Do  you  know  how  much  they  appropriated  for  that 
purpose  ? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  I  think  the  first  appropriation  was  £2,000.000— that 
is,  $10,000,000. 

Mr.  WHITE.  How  long  ago  was  that? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  1889. 

Mr.  WHITE.  When  were  you  there  ? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  1888,  1889,  and  1890. 

Mr.  WHITE.  What  was  the  character  of  that  land  that  they  divided 
into  20,  40,  60,  and  80  acre  tracts ;  is  that  irrigated  or  unirrigated  ? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  The  north  island  of  New  Zealand  has  an  annual 
average  rainfall  of  about  40  inches.  We  have  an  annual  rainfall  of 
32  inches  in  Michigan.  New  Zealand  is  just  like  Ireland — the  grass 
is  always  green. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Does  your  legislation  make  any  provision  for  the  sale 
of  the  land  by  the  farmer  ? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  EAKER.  Should  a  man's  land  be  tied  up  for  more  than  five 
years,  or  should  he  be  given  an  opportunity  to  sell  it  to  whom  he 
saw  fit  after  he  had  lived  on  it  for  20  years  under  one  of  these 
projects?  What  is  your  view  of  that? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  I  would  have  it  tied  up. 

Mr.  RAKER.  About  how  long? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Well,  for  at  least  10  years. 

Mr.  RAKER.  So  that  he  could  not  sell  it  or  mortgage  it? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  think  that  would  work  out  better  ? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  I  think  it  would. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  is  the  system  that  you  folks  work  in  Michigan, 
and  also  that  worked  in  New  Zealand — you  have  had  experience 
there  ? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  I  don't  know  what  the  practice  is  in  New  Zealand  now. 
We  do  not  actually  sell  any  land.  The  development  bureau  is  a 
-sort  of  a  chamber  of  commerce  for  20  counties  in  western  Michigan. 
We  exploit  its  agricultural  resources  and  try  to  get  new  settlers. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Has  New  Zealand  a  limitation  as  to  time  of  sale? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Yes:  they  have. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Do  you  know,  what  it  is? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  No. 

Mr.  RAKER.  One  further  matter  on  that  subject  :  For  instance,  in 
a  project  started  by  the  Government  we  could  expect  to  put  it  on 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  157 

the  basis  of  80  acres  to  a  farm.  Would  you  let  a  man  have  more 
than  one  tract  after  he  had  purchased  his  homestead  ? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  You  mean  additional  acreage? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Suppose  he  took  a  tract  of  either  160,  or  260,  or  240, 
or  280,  should  a  man  be  held  down  to  that  one  tract,  or  should  he 
be  allowed  to  purchase  more  as  he  progresses? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  He  should  certainly  be  able  to  buy  all  the  land  he 
can  handle  successfully.  As  I  understand  it,  if  a  man  does  not 
follow  the  farming  methods  laid  down  by  the  Government  experts 
the  land  will  revert  back  to  the  Government. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Suppose  he  is  successful  and  gets  a  patent  and  is 
prosperous.  It  is  your  view  that  he  should  be  permitted  to  go  and 
buy  as  many  other  tracts  in  this  project  as  he  desires,  or  should 
he  be  held  down  to  that  one  only  ? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  No;  I  would  not  hold  him  down.  Let  him  buy  as 
many  as  he  can  farm  successfully. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  are  not  afraid  of  a  monopoly  ? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  No ;  not  at  all. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Would  you  have  all  the  land  cleared  and  cultivated, 
or  would  you  have  the  one-quarter  or  one-third  thus  cleared  and 
cultivated  and  then  let  the  balance  be  cleared  by  such  community 
efforts? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Yes.  My  understanding  of  the  matter  is  that  in  the 
cut-over  land  areas  the  tracts  will  be  divided  into  farms  of  80  acres 
each,  with  20  acres  brushed  and  20  acres  cleared.  I  think  this  is 
the  best  plan. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  not  have  it  all  cleared? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  No ;  I  would  not  do  that. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  not  leave  any  clearing  for  him  to  do  ? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  No.  Allow  the  soldier  to  use  his  own  labor  and  that 
of  his  family,  if  he  has  one. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  What  do  you  mean  by  brushing  20  ? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Just  taking  out  the  underbrush,  so  that  a  man  could 
plant  his  beans  or  potatoes  between  the  stumps.  Even  at  the  present 
time  some  are  farming  in  that  fashion  and  have  been  doing  so  for 
years. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Are  those  stumps  valuable  for  fuel  ? 

Mr.  GIBSON.  Not  very  valuable.  We  have  tried  to  cut  them  up  with 
a  buzz  saw,  but  it  is  a  difficult  and  expensive  job.  They  make  good 
fences,  though.  They  will  stay  put  for  a  thousand  years. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  next  gentleman  to  address  us  is  appearing 
on  behalf  of  the  Spanish  War  veterans. 

STATEMENT   OF   D.   V.    CHISHOLM,   LEGISLATIVE    REPRESENTA- 
TIVE OF  THE  SPANISH-AMERICAN  WAR  VETERANS. 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  I  am  not  a  farmer,  so  I  will  not  detain  you  long.  I 
come,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  ask  for  a  change  in  the  bill.  The  language 
of  it  specifies  that  those  who  will  benefit  will  only  be  soldiers,  sailors, 
etc.,  of  the  present  war.  The  changes  I  would  call  attention  to  and 
request  appear  on  the  first  page  and  will  make  the  bill  apply  to  any 
soldier  who  has  served  in  any  war.  They  are  entitled  to  share  in 
the  benefit  and  should  not  be  discredited,  and  for  that  reason  I  am 


158  HOMES  FOK  SOLDIERS. 

asking  that  the  bill  be  changed,  together  with  Mr.  McElroy,  who  is 
here  representing  the  Grand  Army.  We  request  that  the  bill  be 
changed  on  line  4. 

Mr.  SNELL.  What  page? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  Page  1,  by  striking  out  "  with  the  military  or 
naval  forces  "  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  "Army,  Navy,  or  Marine 
Corps  ";  by  striking  out,  in  line  5,  after  the  word  "  States,"  "  during 
the  war  between  the  United  States  and  Germany  and  her  allies."  and 
inserting  in  lieu  thereof  "  in  time  of  war." 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I  have  a  bill,  Mr.  Chisholm,  bearing  on  the  same 
subject.  I  introduced  a  bill  to  that  effect, 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  Line  9,  the  two  words  "  separated  or,"  and  in  line 
8,  change  the  word  "  with  "  to  "  in." 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  your  object  in  striking  out  the  words 
"separated  or"? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  Because  every  man  separated  from  the  Army 
whether  it  be  by  reason  of  resignation  or  discharge — when  a  man 
resigns  he  gets  a  certificate  of  discharge,  and  "  separated  "  is  super- 
fluous and  not  used  in  any  soldiers'  bill.  In  line  9,  strike  out  the 
words  "  separated  or  "  so  that  this  change  is  made  and  will  make  the 
bill  read: 

That  to  provide  employment  and  rural  homos  for  those  who  have  served  in 
the  Army.  Navy,  or  .Marine  Corps  of  the  United  States  in  time  of  war  and  have 
been  honorably  discharged  therefrom  or  placed  in  the  Regular  Army  Reserve, 
and  former  American  citizens  who  served  in  and  were  honorably  discharged 
from  the  military  or  naval  forces  of  any  of  the  nations,  etc. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  would  not  be  your  purpose  to  exclude  those  in 
the  Reserve  at  the  present  time? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  Oh,  no :  our  idea  is  that  all  those  who  served  in  or 
with  the  Army  ought  to  secure  these  benefits. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Your  idea  is  to  give  these  benefits  also  to  those 
who  served  in  other  wars? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  In  what  period? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Spanish-American  War,  Cuban  war,  and  the 
Civil  War. 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  many  members  are  there  of  the  Spanish  War 
veterans;  how  many  are  there  surviving? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  How  many  Spanish- American  War  veterans  sur- 
viving? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  About  390,000. 

The  Cn  AH;. MAX.  About  390.000.    What  is  their  average  age? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  I  would  say  45 — between  42  and  45. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  many  do  you  think  would  like  to  receive  the 
benefits  of  this  act? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  Well,  I  believe  that  the  soldiers  of  the  Spanish- 
Aineriran  War  probably  would  take  a  greater  advantage  of  this 
proposition  than  the  men  of  the  later  war.  for  the  reason  that  those 
men  of  the  Spanish  War  have  got  homes  and  are  looking  out  for  some- 
possible  investment  and  this,  it  appears  to  me,  would  be  a  good  in- 
i  e-i  meiit  for  a  member  of  the  Spanish  War. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Could  you  give  us  an  idea  of  the  percentage  which 
would  take  advantage  of  this  proposition  ? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  159 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  This  came  to  me  so  much  all  of  a  sudden  I  have 
not  had  time  to  look  into  it  or  study  it,  but  I  would  say  that  it  would 
be  20  per  cent  which  would  probably  take  advantage  of  it — it  would 
be  in  the  neighborhood  of  20  per  cent. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  would  be  nearly  70,000? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  I  would  say  yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  now,  has  your  organization  taken  official  or 
formal  action  in  this  matter? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  It  has  not. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Or  are  you  just  initiating  this  yourself? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  I  am  ordered  to  do  this  by  the  commander  in  chief. 
The  former  commander  in  chief  of  our  organization  was  a  Member  of 
your  House,  who  died  only  a  few  days  ago — Col.  Van  Dyke,  and  Mr. 
Jones,  of  New  York,  succeeded  him. ' 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  his  official  position? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  He  is  in  the  city  government  of  the  State  of  New 
York. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  bill  is  for  an  authorization  of  $500,000,000, 
probably  to  be  expended  in  f\ve  years,  according  to  the  statement  of 
the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  That  will  take  care  of  approximately 
80.000  soldiers.  Now,  assuming  that  to  be  true — that  this  authoriza- 
tion will  only  take  care  of  80,000  soldiers,  and  that  that  is  all  we  are 
going  to  get,  how  would  you  apportion  these  homes  among  the  soldiers 
of  the  present  war — the  soldiers  of  the  Spanish- American  War  and 
other  wars  ? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  I  have  no  idea  as  to  that,  except  to  give  it  to  the 
first  applicants. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  first  ones  who  applied? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  Precisely. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  would  leave  it  to  the  Secretary  then  to  select 
the  men  ? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Not  according  to  the  war  in  which  he  served,  but 
according  to  the  adaptability  of  the  man  to  the  work? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  Do  you  mean  by  that  the  magnitude  of  the  war  in 
whicli  he  served  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No;  according  to  the  war — I  have  nothing  to  say 
about  the  magnitude  of  the  war. 

Mr.  CIIISHOLM.  Of  course,  when  you  begin  to  speak  about  wars 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  we  can  not  take  care  of  all  of  them  out 
of  this  appropriation ;  and  it  ought  to  be  alloted  in  some  way — either 
the  wav  in  which  you  mentioned  or  some  other  way. 

Mr.  MCELROY.  Gentlemen,  I  appear  here  for  the  National  Tribune, 
which  is  the  mouthpiece  of  the  Civil  War,  and  possibly  I  can  throw 
a  little  light  upon  what  you  are  struggling  with — that  is,  a  progres- 
sive piece  of  legislation.  I  have  been  editor  of  the  Tribune  for  five 
years.  All  that  time  I  have  had  inquiries  and  requests  regarding  this 
very  question  of  homestead  settlement.  It  is  a  progressive  matter. 
Immediately  after  the  war  apparently  few  went  to  the  farms.  The 
Avar  ended  in  1865  and  my  remembrance  is  that  in  1872  there  was 
u  great  rush  of  comrades  to  the  West — over  150,000 — largely  from  the 
encampments.  Very  many  went  from  the  Sixty-sixth  in  New  York, 
and  I  happen  to  know  myself  that  they  are  now  out  in  Minnesota. 
133319—19 11 


160  HOMES   FOE  SOLDIERS. 

It  created  quite  a  stir  at  the  time,  but  that  movement  to  the  West 
was  the  thing  which  lifted  us  up  out  of  the  hole  of  debt  which  we 
were  in  at  the  close  of  the  war-  We  had  $3.000.000,000— $20,000,000 
which  we  had  to  bear  in  taxation  to  enable  us  to  pay  off  that  great. 
debt.  Now,  we  paid  $150,000,000  a  year  in  gold,  which  is  equivalent 
to  nearly  $300,000,000  of  greenbacks.  Now,  it  lifted  us  out  of  that 
hole — that  remarkable  wave.  All  the  old  soldiers  who  went  to 
Kansas,  Nebraska,  North  Dakota,  and  South  Dakota  in  practically  a 
few  years  prospered  and  added  to  the  wealth  and  extent  of  the 
country.  They  were  all  Grand  Army  men  and  went  out  through 
South  Dakota,  North  Dakota,  not  so  much  Oregon  and  Washington, 
but  Minnesota,  the  Dakotas,  Kansas.  Nebraska,  Colorado.  Montana. 
Wyoming,  and  Idaho  were  all  built  up  by  the  soldiers  of  the 
Civil  War. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  From  the  homestead  act? 

Mr.  MCELROY.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  we  had  a  representative  of  the  National 
Grange  here  the  other  day,  who  told  us  that  the  homestead  law 
broke  up  many  farms  in  the  East  amj  that  it  took  40  years  to  re- 
cover from  the  effects  of  it. 

Mr.  MCELROY.  Probably — if  yon  will  pardon  an  interruption — I 
can  throw  a  little  light  on  it.  I  have  been  writing  and  studying 
economic  subjects  for  a  long  time.  What  broke  up  the  homes  in  the 
East  was  probably  ihe  building  of  the  Erie  Canal:  but,  to  go  back, 
there  was  a  great  flood  of  these  veterans  who  went  out  there,  and 
you  can  hardly  remember  the  time,  but  I  do,  I  remember  when 
Fremont  and  others  were  making  the  explorations  through  this 
wilderness.  WTithin  a  few  years  they  had  transformed  this  wilder- 
ness out  there  into  great  prosperous  States — those  Grand  Army  men 
did  it.  I  have  not  got  statistics  with  me,  but  I  think  it  was  44  per 
cent  of  their  men  indicated  an  intention  to  go  back  to  the  farms. 

Mr.  iSMiTH.  Reverting  to  your  suggestion  that  the  words  "Army, 
Navy,  and  Marine  Corps"  be  substituted  for  "military  and  naval 
forces."  The  Marine  Corps  is  a  part  of  the  naval  forces. 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  That  is  just  the  ordinary  way  of  putting  it. 

Mr.  MCELROY.  I  believe  in  using  the  customary  and  well-formed 
phrase  which  can  not  be  misunderstood  or  misinterpretated.  There 
are  only  two  ways  for  a  man  to  get  out  of  the  service  of  the  United 
States.  He  can  die,  or  he  can  be  honorably  discharged.  Now,  there 
is  no  use  in  meddling  with  something  susceptible  of  different  con- 
structions. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  will  say,  Colonel,  I  have  written  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  War  to  ascertain  the  technical  meaning  of  this  language,  but 
I  have  not  heard  from  him  as  yet. 

Mr.  SNELL.  May  I  ask  a  question?  I  observe  JTOU  have  stricken 
put  the  word  "  with  "  or  propose  to  strike  out  the  word  "  with  "  and 
insert  the  word  "in,"  thus  restricting  it  to  persons  who  were  in  the 
actual  military  service.  That  would  exclude  field  clerks  and  the 
nurses  corps,  "is  that  the  intention? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  That  is  the  intention;  yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  would  exclude  everybody  who  did  not  actu- 
ally serve  in  (he  recognized  branches  of  the  military  establishment? 

Air.  CHISHOLM.  Absolutely. 


HOMES  FOB  SOLDIEKS.  161 

Mr.  SMITH.  Are  not  field  clerks  enlisted  men? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  There  is  a  possibility  there  of  that. 

Mr.  SNELL.  The  reason  I  asked  about  that  is  that  in  the  War  Eisk 
Insurance  Bureau  and  other  war  bills  that  we  passed  the  nurses 
corps  and  the  field  clerks  were  included,  and  given  the  benefit  of 
those  acts  on  the  theory  from  our  House,  at  least,  that  they  were  a 
necessary  part  of  the  military  establishment.  Now,  what  do  you 
think  about  excluding  them  from  this'? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  I  think  it  is  absolutely  proper  to  apply  to  only 
those  men  who  are  classed  as  soldiers,  just  men  who  enlisted  or  were 
drafted  into  the  service. 

Mr.  SXELL.  Because  if  the  wording  is  not  changed  and  it  is  intro- 
duced in  its  present  form  it  would  include  the  entire  personnel. 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  Our  idea  is  to  get  away  from  the  men  who  were 
not  actual  participants. 

Mr.  SNELL.  I  agree  with  you  about  that.  I  am  talking  about  par- 
ticularly the  field  clerks  and  nurses. 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  They  are  enlisted. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Yes ;  but  they  do  not  have  a  military  status. 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SNELL.  But  they  can  not  be  separated  from  the  service  of  their 
own  initiative? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  SNELL.  If  you  will  make  an  investigation,  Captain,  I  think 
you  will  find  that  they  are  not  considered  as  enlisted  into  the  Army. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Would  your  language  embrace  those  who  were  on 
the  Mexican  border? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  We  were  not  at  war. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Would  you  include  the  men  who  served  on  the  Mexican- 
border  ? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  It  would  include  all  who  served  on  the  Mexican 
border.  Well,  if  they  were  in  the  Army  when  war  was  declared,  they 
would  be  entitled  to  receive  the  benefits  of  the  act. 

Mr.  SMITH.  They  should  be  entitled  to  the  benefits  of  the  law  be- 
cause they  were  there  performing  military  service  and  were  subject 
to  military  orders  even  though  they  were  not  actually  at  war. 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  But  they  did  not  have  a  war  status  in  the  War 
Department. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Captain,  should  jour  amendment  seem  to  jeopar- 
dize the  passage  of  this  bill,  would  you  still  insist  upon  it? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  I  hardly  think  I  would  be  justified  in  saying  yes. 
Now,  it  would  seem  that  I  would  be  justified  in  making  a  fight  as  long 
as  it  is  possible  for  me  to  fight  to  see  that  it  does  get  in  the  bill. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  vou  do  not  want  to  jeopardize  the  passage 
of  the  bill? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  I  would  hate  to  burden  you  gentlemen  with  the 
great  mass  of  correspondence  you  would  have  to  answer. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  am  inclined  to  think  if  this  bill  is  amended  as  you 
suggest,  it  should  be  sufficiently  definite  to  include  the  men  who 
served  in  the  Philippine  insurrection  as  well. 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  It  should  include  those  who  were  in  the  Army 
when  we  were  actually  at  war. 

Mr.  SMITH.  There  was  no  declaration  of  war,  I  believe,  but  it  was 
an  actual  state  of  war  without  the  declaration. 


162  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  VALE.  Did  I  understand  Col.  McElroy  was  just  indorsing  Mr. 
Chisholm's  suggestion  in  regard  to  the  inclusion  of  Spanish  War 
veterans  or  that  he  appeared  in  connection  with  the  Grand  Army 
men  as  well — that  they  should  receive  the  benefit  of  this  act? 

Mr.  MCELROY.    No. 

Mr.  VALE.  Colonel,  I  do  not  think  you  quite  understand  me.  I 
want  your  idea  in  regard  to  including  the  Grand  Army  men  in  this 
bill. 

Mr.  MCELROY.  I  want  to  say  it  seems  to  me  that  it  would  be  of 
the  highest  public  policy  to  include  those  men.  and  also  to  hold 
forth  every  inducement  to  enter  the  military  and  naval  services  of 
the  United  States.  Now,  we  in  the  Grand  Army  have  proceeded 
under  some  iron-clad  rules.  A  man  must  have  been  in  the  service  of 
the  United  States  after  the  4th  of  March,  1861,  and  prior  to  the  9th 
of  April,  18G5,  and  been  honorably  discharged.  That  is  all  we  ask 
of  any  man  to  admit  him  to  our  organization. 

Mr.  VALE.  Colonel,  what  I  am  asking  about  is  whether  or  not  you 
•wish  the  veterans  of  the  Civil  War  to  have  the  benefits  of  this  act. 

Mr.  MCELROY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  VALE.  Do  you  think  there  would  be  many  of  them  left  to  take 
advantage  of  it? 

Mr.  MCELROY.  Oh,  yes;  because  I  have  a  flood  of  letters  every  time 
an  Indian  reservation  is  opened  up  asking  for  information. 

Mr.  VALE.  Then  you  think  there  would  be  a  considerable  number 
of  them  take  advantage  of  it? 

Mr.  MCELROY.  Well,  a  good  many  would  come  out  there.  I 
started  a  colony  in  Florida ;  a  great  many  soldiers  went  down  there 
and  are  still  working  down  there  and  others  are  going  down.  They 
still  want  to  have  some  land  of  their  own. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Mr.  Chisholm,  I  observe  that  you  say  "  in  time  of 
war."  The  same  thought  occurs  to  me  that  did  to  Mr.  Smith  here. 
That  excludes  the  members  of  our  Military  Establishment  who  were 
in  the  operations  at  Vera  Cruz,  does  it  not? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  I  should  think  not. 

Mr.  WHITE.  When  they  landed  at  Vera  Cruz  and  occupied  the 
port,  where  many  of  them  were  wounded,  and  that  excludes  those 
men,  because  we  were  not  technically  at  war;  is  that  true? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  That  would  have  to  be  construed  by  the  Military 
Establishment. 

Mr.  WHITE.  This  says  "  in  time  of  war."  War  is  only  war  when 
it  is  so  declared  by  Congress. 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  As  for  myself,  I  would  say  that  they  would  not  be 
-excluded. 

Mr.  WHITE.  That  would  also  bar  the  men  who  went  after  Villa, 
And  would  not  include  the  men  who  were  in  Santo  Domingo,  and 
participated  in  those  operations  where  many  of  them  were  killed 
and  wounded;  you  would  not  include  them  according  to  that 
wording? 

Mr.  CHISIIOLM.  No. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Well,  don't  you  think  they  ought  to  be,  now,  just 
frankly  ?  They  were  performing  services  for  their  country. 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  I  have  absolutely  no  objections. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Under  the  command  of  their  superior  officers. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  163 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  I  have  no  objections  to  your  putting  in  all  that 
you  please,  as  long  as  you  leave  the  members  of  our  little  war  some 
of  the  benefits  that  you  give  any  other  soldier. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  am  in  favor  of  that. 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  I  am  in  favor  of  you  giving  them  the  same  benefits* 
so  long  as  you  do  not  cut  us  out. 

Mr.  MCELROY.  The  Supreme  Court  has  recognized  a  condition  of 
war.  Now,  there  have  been  a  whole  lot  of  endings  of  the  War  of  the 
Rebellion.  We  of  the  Grand  Army  say  the  surrender  of  Lee.  The 
Navy  says  the  5th  of  July,  1865.  The  Supreme  Court  has  ruled  that 
the  condition  of  war  ceased  by  the  President  issuing  a  proclamation 
restoring  the  civil  courts  and  lifting  the  blockade.  That  was  a  pro- 
gressive thing  and  continued  until  the  18th  of  August,  1866. 

Mr.  WHITE.  And  that  same  proposition  would  take  into  account 
the  nurses  who  served  overseas? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  Yes. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  If  you  adopt  the  word  "  separated  "  on  the  bottom 
of  page  1 — now.  you  know  it  has  been  revealed  to  this  Congress,  or 
the  Sixty-fifth  Congress,  that  there  were  a  number  of  soldiers,  just  be- 
fore the  armistice  was  signed,  who  were  tried  by  court-martial  for  in- 
subordination simply  for  refusing  to  give  a  package  of  cigarettes  up 
to  a  minor  officer.  These  men  were  placed  in  prison  where  they  served 
sentences.  However,  when  the  fact  was  discovered  the  President 
relieved  them  of  those  sentences.  Do  you  not  think  they  should  be 
given  the  same  benefit  as  the  others  ?  The  word  "  separate  "  covers 
that? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  The  President,  or  the  War  Department  can  clear 
their  records. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  They  have  already  cleared  their  records. 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  Tlien  they  would  be  honorably  discharged. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Just  a  couple  of  questions — whether  or  not  the  legisla- 
tion that  is  finally  put  through  on  this  subject  provides  that  the 
widows  of  these  soldiers  should  receive  the  benefit  of  this  home- 
stead provision. 

Mr.  MCELROY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  We  would  not  be  true  soldiers,  if  we  did  not  stick 
to  the  women.  This  legislation  should  give  the  women  the  oppor- 
tunity to  go  in  and  get  a  title  to  one  of  these  homesteads. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  mean  the  widow  is  to  inherit,  or  the 
widow  of  any  deceased  soldier  can  go  in  herself? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Lawful  widow.  If  he  has  not  obtained  the  benefits 
of  this  act  and  has  a  lawful  widow  surviving  him,  she  should  have 
the  privileges  extended  to  her. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  How  about  the  mothers  of  those  killed? 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  homestead  act  took  in  the  widows  of  the  soldiers 
of  the  Civil  War,  but  I  do  not  believe  it  went  to  the  extent  of  giving 
the  mothers,  but  I  can  not  see  why  the  field  clerks,  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.,. 
the  Salvation  Army,  the  Red  Cross,  or  the  Knights  of  Columbus, 
who  actually  went  and  were  at  the  front  participating  and  assist- 
ing, should  not  be  given  recognition,  too. 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  Well,  in  my  opinion  I  think  they  should  have 
taken  the  same  chance  as  those  people  who  enlisted  or  were  drafted. 
I  think  they  should  have  all  gone  in  as  soldiers. 


164  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  A  great  number  were  not  of  military  age. 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  A  great  many  of  the  available  men  of  those  or- 
ganizations could  not  have  gotten  into  the  Army. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  want  to  limit  it  to  men  who  have  enlisted? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  We  only  insist  that  a  man  should  be  definitely 
enlisted  and  honorably  discharged. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Field  clerks  are  part  of  the  military  force  and 
can  not  get  out  until  they  are  honorably  discharged. 

Mr.  SNELL.  They  have  a  military  status,  but  they  are  not  part  of 
the  Army — that  is  they  are  not  counted  as  enlisted  men  and  do  not 
have  a  pensionable  status  like  the  ordinary  soldier — they  are  not  part 
of  the  Military  Establishment,  although  they  obey  military  orders 
and  are  connected  with  it.  We  discussed  that  question  when  we 
wrere  considering  the  war-risk  insurance  bill. 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  In  our  organization  wo  do  not  admit  anyone  unless 
Tie  actually  had  enlisted  and  was  discharged.  Those  are  the  people 
we  represent. 

Mr.  VALE.  While  Capt.  Chisholm  is  here,  and  for  the  information 
of  the  chairman.  I  will  say  in  my  little  camp  of  Spanish  War  Vet- 
erans I  have  received  a  number  of  inquiries  about  this  bill,  and  they 
seem  to  be  all  in  favor  of  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  want  to  take  advantage  of  it? 

Mr.  VALE.  Yes. 

Mr.  SNELL.  That  is  true  of  my  camp. 

Mr.  MCELROY.  Why,  ever  since  the  close  of  the  war  we  have  had 
people  trying  to  get  in  and  have  a  more  or  less  definite  connection 
with  the  Army.  Some  of  them  should  have  been  included.  The 
military  telegraphers  were  under  orders,  as  were  the  men  who  were 
writing  messages.  At  the  last  national  encampment  the  matter  \vas 
taken  up  and  discussed  and  it  was  felt  that  they  should  have  brought 
in  the  telegraphers  and  those  who  served  in  the  regular  Marine 
Corps,  but  you  start  out  with  that  same  requirement. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Colonel,  could  you  give  us  an  outline  of  the  vari- 
ous acts  giving  soldiers  of  the  Civil  War  special  consideration  in 
the  matter  of  land  selection  ?  I  know  there  were  some. 

Mr.  MCELROY.  Well,  for  a  long  time  a  man  could  go  on  to  the 
ground  and  get  his  patent,  having  the  time  of  his  service  in  the  mili- 
tary establishment  deducted  from  the  time  required  to  prove  up  his 
claim.  To-day  they  only  require  a  year's  residence.  That  applies 
to  any  soldier. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  he  has  seen  service. 

Mr.  MCELROY.  And  then  there  was  a  law  providing  for  a  five- 
year  residence,  but  a  man  could  get  his  patent  after  a  term  of  resi- 
dence on  there  equivalent  to  this  and  deducting  his  military  service 
from  the  time. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Special  consideration  has  heretofore  been  given 
to  the  soldiers,  is  that  true? 

Mr.  MCELROY.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  they  had  at  that  time  the  choice  land  of  the 
country  ? 

Mr. 'MCELROY.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  he  also  had  the  privilege  of  selecting  his 
land  through  an  agent? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  165 

Mr.  MCELROY.  Oh,  yes;  there  were  various  little  features  of  that 
kind  of  which  we  got  the  benefit. 

Mr.  TAYLOR..  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  ask  both  these  gentlemen  a 
question,  and  I  do  not  ask  it  with  any  inclination  or  any  thought  of 
opposing  your  suggestion,  but  when  this  matter  first  started  out  in 
the  last  session  of  Congress  it  was  before  the  Irrigation  Committee. 
At  that  time  it  was  thought  there  would  not  probably  be  sufficient 
members  of  the  present  war  to  take  up  all  of  these  lands,  and  that 
we  probably  would  have  to  throw  it  open  to  everybody  else. 

Then  the  pendulum  swung  to  the  other  way  and  they  decided  that 
inasmuch  as  Canada  and  all  the  English-speaking  countries  of  the 
world,  and  every  civilized  nation  that  was  in  this  war  was  trying 
to  do  something  special  for  the  soldiers  participating  in  this  war 
because  this  war  has  been  the  greatest  and  most  terrible  ever,  we 
ought  to  show  these  boys  some  special  consideration,  and  not  put 
them  on  a  plane  with  everybody  else  in  the  world.  Then,  as  I  say, 
the  pendulum  swung  the  other  way  and  the  bill  was  written  in  this 
form  limiting  it  to  those  participating  in  this  war,  and  Secretary 
Lane  appeared  before  us  the  other  day  and  he  said  he  was  in  favor 
of  confining  it  to  those  men.  He  said  that  nobody  had  anything 
against  or  felt  like  discounting  the  aims  of  the  Spanish  War  veterans, 
certainly  not  the  Civil  War  veterans,  but  if  we  were  going  to  do 
anything  special  for  these  boys  like  the  other  countries  are  doing — 
giving  them  $8,000  or  $9,000  "apiece  to  establish  themselves  in  life— 
the  Spanish  War  veterans  are  20  years  older ;  the  Civil  War  veterans 
are  50  years  older  and  they  have  all  had  opportunities  to  take  their 
pick  of  the  good  land  of  the  United  States,  and  they  have  all  of 
them  had  a  fair  amount  of  opportunity  of  taking  lands  under  these 
other  Government  reclamation  projects — there  are  32  of  them  in 
numbers,  and  they  are  very  advantageously  arranged  for  settlers. 
We  would  not  be  showing  proper  consideration  to  the  young  men 
of  this  war  if  we  threw  it  open  and  made  it  as  you  suggested,  giving 
everybody  an  unlimited  field. 

The  question  is  whether  we  could  honorably  and  decently  and 
fairly  throw  the  land  open  to  everybody  and  still  show  our  boys  that 
we  appreciate  their  services  in  this  war.  Now,  let  me  give  you  that 
thought,  not  from  me,  but  as  a  question  that  we  have  got  to  meet 
on  the  floor  of  the  House  and  before  Secretary  Lane,  the  real  author 
of  this  whole  proposition;  and  the  question  is  whether  or  not  we 
want  to  kill  our  golden  goose,  and  whether  we  want  to  bite  off  more 
than  we  can  chew  and  fall  down  on  it;  and  how  much  support 
we  can  expect  to  get  from  doing  the  best  we  can  and  not  trying  to 
reach  out  for  too  much  and  fall  down.  As  Mr.  Graham  suggests, 
if  we  are  going  to  throw  it  wide  open  to  everybody  in  the  United 
States,  why  it  may  take  $10,000,000,000  and  the  question  is  whether 
or  not  we  ought  not  to  do  something  for  these  boys  who  have  come 
home  from  this  war.  If  they  do  not  take  advantage  of  it  at  the 
end  of  a  year  or  some  definite  "time,  then  we  can  throw  it  open  to  the 
veterans  of  the  Spanish- American  War  and  to  everybody  else.  Now, 
what  is  your  answer  to  that,  to  arguments  of  that  kind,  not  coming 
from  me,  but  as  arguments  which  we  have  got  to  meet? 

Mr.  MCELROY.  The  captain's  suggestion  is  that  a  man  must  have 
enlisted  in  the  service  of  the  United  States  and  been  honorably 


166  HOMES  FOR  SOLtDIERS. 

discharged — that  is  all  he  wants — for  a  man  to  have  held  up  his 
hand  and  sworn  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
and  obey  the  law.  That  is  where  it  should  stop,  and  let  the  boys 
have  the  first  pick  and  let  us  take  the  second  pick. 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  I  will  answer  you  by  saying  that  I  consider  a 
law — 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  are  not  answering  me.  How  are  you  going  to 
meet  such  arguments  as  that? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  I  would  like  to  say  to  Secretary  Lane,  or  anybody 
else,  that  I  consider  our  soldiers  of  the  Spanish  War  just  us  loyal 
and  patriotic 

Mr.  TAYLOR  (interposing).  Oh,  certainly,  certainly. 

Mr.  CHISHOLM  (continuing).  And  did  just  as  much  as  any  soldier 
of  this  present  war,  or  any  previous  war.  The  men  who  fought  at 
Manila  Bay,  and  in  Cuba  afterwards,  were  wounded  and  killed  the 
same  as  in  any  other  war,  and  the  men  made  the  same  sacrifice  and 
were  equally  deserving.  Take  my  own  case  as  an  example.  I  got 
on  a  cattle  boat  for  transportation  south,  and  the  lower  end  of  the 
cattle  boat  where  the  cattle  had  been  herded  and  were  fed  was  fitted 
up  in  a  rough  way  for  us  to  eat  and  sleep,  and  the  ship  had  not 
been  out  of  the  cattle-carrying  trade  very  long  either,  and  when  we 
got  to  Cuba  we  were  sick;  and  J  might  say  this,  that  the  men  that 
returned  from  the  Spanish- American  War,  as  I  understand  it,  lost 
about  26  pounds  per  man,  while  those  who  return  from  the  present 
war  have  gained  on  an  average  of  12  pounds  per  man. 

When  I  returned  from  Cuba  I  weighed  135  pounds.  I  was  near 
death  for  nine  months  and  spent  all  my  money  and  got  nothing  from 
the  Government  for  it  at  all.  They  placed  me  in  charge  of  this  leg- 
islation, so  far  as  I  might  aid  in  presenting  our  case  to  Congress.  I 
think  the  veterans  of  all  wars  should  be  put  on  the  same  footing, 
and  then  that  will  be  perfectly  satisfactory  to  every  soldier  of  any 
kind.  There  has  been  a  good  deal  of  legislation  for  the  veterans 
of  the  Civil  War,  but  not  until  the  last  two  years,  and  then  only  after 
tremendous  pressure  last  year,  was  our  widows'  pension  bill  put 
through.  Now,  in  its  present  shape,  this  bill  is  still  against  the  sol- 
dier of  the  Spanish  War,  and  I  think  it  should  be  made  so  that  no 
soldier  is  discriminated  against.  In  passing,  I  would  like  to  call 
attention  to  the  fact  that  every  soldier  in  the  Spanish  War  was  a 
volunteer. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  am  a  little  curious  to  know  how  you  arrive  at  your 
estimates  that  20  per  cent  of  the  Spanish- American  War  veterans 
would  take  advantage  of  this  proposition. 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  Most  of  our  men  are  getting  along  toward  4.0  or 
45  years  of  age  and  to  the  point  where  they  desire  more  than  ever 
to  own  land. 

Mr.  SMITH.  But  are  not  all  those  men  established  in  their  homes 
and  business  and  activities  so  permanently  that  they  would  not  want 
to  change? 

Mr.  CHISHOLM.  That  is  a  possibility,  but  not  a  certainty. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  doubt  if  there  are  5  per  cent  of  these  men  who  would 
take  ad  vantage  of  it. 

Mr.  CinsiHiL.M.  The  Spanish-American  War  men  arc  still  floating 
around  I  he  country.  Sonic  of  them  are  in  business;  some  are  not 
working. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  167 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  maj^  say  I  think  this  fear  about  flooding  is  entirely 
mythical.  I  do  not  think  one-half  of  1  per  cent  of  the  Spanish  War 
veterans  would  take  advantage  of  it.  I  do  not  believe  there  are  2 
per  cent  or  1  per  cent  of  the  Spanish  War  veterans  that  will  take 
advantage  of  it,  but  I  have  not  any  objection  to  their  having  the 
opportunity.  I  do  not  think  they  are  going  to  take  it  at  all,  but  it  is 
a  sentimental  matter — the  giving  to  them  of  the  opportunity — but 
my  thought  is  this,  that  we  are  not  keeping  up  with  the  other 
nations  in  doing  something  special  for  our  boys.  So  far  we  have  not 
done  one  thing  except  to  give  them  $60. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  As  a  Nation  we  are  not  doing  as  much  for  our 
soldiers  as  the  others. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Canada  has  given  them  from  $5,000  to  $10,000  apiece 
and  puts  them  on  a  320-acre  farm,  where  we  have  not  done  anything 
up  to  the  present  time. 

Mr.  SNELL.  I  think  you  are  mistaken  when  you  say  that  Canada 
is  giving  them  $5,000  or  $10,000. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Canada  is  putting  the  soldiers  on  the  land  and  financ- 
ing their  stock,  where  as  yet  this  country  has  not  done  anything  for 
the  returning  soldiers. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  seems  to  be  a  convenient  point  at  which  to 
adjourn.  We  will  adjourn  until  to-morrow  morning  at  10  o'clock. 


until 


(Whereupon,  at  12.30  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  hearing  was  adjourned 
til  10  o'clock  a.  m.  June  4,  1919.) 


COMMITTEE  ON  PUBLIC  LANDS, 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Wednesday,  June  4,  1919. 

The  committee  met  at  10.15  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Nicholas  J.  Sinnott 
(chairman)  presiding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  come  to  order.  What  wit- 
nesses are  before  the  committee  this  morning?  Will  you  appear, 
Mr.  Nelson?  Please  state  your  name  and  whom  you  represent  and 
your  residence. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  WILBUR  A.  NELSON,   SECRETARY  OF  THE 
TENNESSEE  SOLDIERS'  SETTLEMENT  BOARD. 

Mr.  NELSON.  I  would  like  to  read  some  changes  that  the  board  has 
suggested  in  the  amount  of  money  to  be  loaned  to  soldiers  under  the 
Mondell  bill ;  also  the  percentage  that  the  soldiers  should  pay  as  an 
initial  payment. 

It  is  considered  by  the  Tennessee  Soldiers'  Settlement  Board  that 
section  3,  paragraph  2,  should  be  changed  so  that  the  Government 
should  furnish  90  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  the  value  of  the  improve- 
ments, which  90  per  cent  should  not  exceed  $1,500;  that  in  section  8 
the  amount  in  per  cent  be  changed  so  that  the  Government  furnish 
not  more  than  80  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  necessary  live  stock  and 
equipment,  and  that  such  80  per  cent  shall  not  exceed  $1.000. 

In  discussing  further  the  provisions  of  the  present  bill  as  sent  us 
we  feel  that  it  will  be  necessary  for  the  soldiers  getting  land  valued 


168  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

at  $2,000  in  a  soldier-settlement  project  to  make  the  Government 
practically  a  cash  payment  of  $1.000,  and  we  feel  that  this  plan  is 
not  made  for  the  soldier  who  has  $1,000  and  will  not  be  accepted  by 
such  a  soldier,  but  will  be  accepted  by  the  soldier  who  has  very 
little  money. 

Under  the  present  provisions  of  the  bill,  the  soldier  who  bought  a 
$2,000  farm  would  have  to  pay  $100  cash.  He  would  then  have  to 
pay  $400  on  the  value  of  the  house  and  barn  which  could  not  be  built 
for  less  than  $1,600  maximum.  That  is  the  maximum  amount  carried 
in  the  bill.  He  would  then  have  to  pay  a  cash  payment  on  stock  and 
equipment  of  $533  if  he  obtained  the  maximum  loan  of  $800  from  the 
Government,  and  he  would  have  to  do  this  in  order  to  buy  stock  and 
equipment  necessary  for  his  farm.  The  sum  of  $100  for  the  land,  $400 
for  improvements,  and  $533  for  stock  would  make  $1,033  cash  pay- 
ment to  be  paid  by  any  soldier  availing  himself  of  the  M,ondell  plan. 

All  the  Government  wants  is  protection  from  the  soldier,  and  it 
will  certainly  have  this  protection  if  it  requires  5  per  cent  cash  on  the 
land,  10  per  cent  cash  on  improvements,  and  20  per  cent  cash  on  stock 
and  equipment.  On  this  basis  the  soldier  would  be  paying  the  Gov- 
ernment approximately  10  per  cent  cash  for  what  he  receives  on  an 
expenditure  by  the  Government  of  $4,900.  That  is,  considering  $2,000 
the  value  of  the  land,  $1,650  for  improvements,  $1,250  for  stock,  the 
soldier's  cash  payment  being  $500. 

Those  are  the  changes  in  the  bill  that  the  Tennessee  board  would 
like  to  suggest  to  this  committee. 

I  thank  you,  gentlemen. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Does  any  member  of  the  committee  desire  to  ask 
any  questions  of  the  witness? 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  know  that  Mr.  Mondell  touched  on 
the  matter,  and  emphasized  the  fact  that  these  payments  were 
progressive,  that  they  were  not  to  be  made  at  one  time,  so  that  the 
maximum  percentage  that  was  to  be  taken  from  the  soldier  would  not 
be  payable  as  soon  as  the  soldier  took  up  a  unit.  He  would  probably 
be  at  work  on  the  project  for  a  year  and  a  half  or  two  years,  and  then 
his  improvements  would  be  progressive,  and  the  accumulation  of 
stock  would  be  progressive,  so  that  he  would  not  have  to  have  the  full 
amount  at  first  flush. 

Mr.  NELSON.  As  I  understood  it,  in  order  for  the  soldier  to  avail 
himself  of  the  $800  loaned  by  the  Government,  he  would  have  to  put 
cash  $533. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  That  is  the  maximum  amount  that  the  Government 
would  lend  him.  Then  the  amount  at  first  may  be  $200  or  $100,  and 
his  maximum  credit  at  any  one  time  would  not  exceed  the  $800.  But 
it  was  not  expected,  according  to  Mr.  Mondell's  explanation,  that  he 
would  start  out  full  fledged  at  the  beginning,  particularly  if  he  did 
not  have  a  very  large  sum  of  money — that  he  would  measure  his  im- 
provements according  to  what  he  had  in  interest  and  build  up  to  it. 

Mr.  NELSON.  We  are  not  requesting  any  larger  sum  of  money,  but 
just  that  the  Government  will  receive  protection  by  requiring  a  less 
percentage,  from  the  soldier. 

Mr.  YAILK.  Let  me  ask  this  question:  Ts  this  suggestion  based  on 
the  experience  of  the  Soldier  Settlement  Board  in  Tennessee  > 

Mr.  NELSON.  This  is  a  suggestion  made  by  the  Soldier  Settlement 
Boa  I'd  at  a  regular  meeting. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  169 

Mr.  VAILE.  Is  that  based  on  their  experience  in  cases  of  soldiers — 
that  suggestion  outlined  there  ? 

Mr.  NELSON.  We  have  never  had  any  soldiers'  settlements.  It  is 
just  based  on  the  experience  of  knowing  what  it  costs  to  buy  live 
stock  in  Tennessee  and  what  it  costs  to  make  improvements,  in  the 
way  of  building  farm  dwellings,  barns,  and  fences. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Have  you  any  provision — did  you  have  any  provision 
for  the  settlement  of  ex-Confederate  soldiers  on  the  land  in  Ten- 
nessee ? 

Mr.  NELSOX.  I  don't  think  so.    I  am  not  positive  about  that. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Mr.  Nelson,  did  I  understand  you  to  say  that  your 
board  estimated  that  the  maximum  amount  there  provided  for  build- 
ings and  live  stock  would  be  necessary  to  properly  equip  the  sol- 
diers ? 

Mr.  NELSON.  Yes,  sir.  We  did.  We  consider  it  would  take  $1,600 
to  equip  in  buildings  any  soldier  farm,  and  that  it  would  take  at 
least  $1,200  to  equip  in  live  stock. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  I  just  wanted  to  be  certain  that  I  understood  you 
correctly. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  have  given  this  matter  quite  extensive  considera- 
tion, and  you  appeared  before  our  committee  in  the  last  Congress. 
Will  you  state  briefly  to  the  committee  the  position  of  the  State  of 
Tennessee  upon  this  matter  and  what  you  are  doing  down  there  ? 

Mr.  NELSON.  Well,  Tennessee,  I  think,  has  taken  the  lead  in  the 
Southern  States.  When  the  matter  was  first  mentioned  by  Secretary 
Lane  last  year,  Tennessee  immediately  took  an  active  interest,  and  an 
unofficial  committee  was  appointed  by  the  Nashville  Commercial 
Club.  This  committee  was  composed  of  men  from  every  section  of 
the  State,  and  they  immediately  made  a  survey  of  the  State  and  con- 
sidered the  type  of  soil,  the  price  of  land,  and  after  going  into  each 
section,  decided  that  the  Cumberland  Plateau  was  the  most  desirable 
place  for  a  soldier's  settlement.  So  they  had  one  of  their  members, 
Mr.  Welch,  appointed  trustee,  and  options  were  taken  in  his  name  on 
about  150,000  acres  of  land,  ranging  in  price  from  $5  to  $15  an  acre, 
and  these  lands  were  surveyed  and  complete  maps  were  made  of  the 
whole  project, 

We  sent  committees  to  Washington  last  February,  and  they  ap- 
peared before  your  committee  and  assisted  in  every  way  we  could  in 
recommending*  for  passage  the  Taylor  bill,  as  it  was  then  known. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Well,  the  State  is  enthusiastically  in  favor  of  it,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  NELSON.  The  State,  as  a  whole,  is  very  enthusiastically  in 
favor  of  it,  and  the  legislature  last  January  passed  a  bill  giving  the 
governor  authority  to  appoint  a  committee  and  appropriating  a 
small  amount  of  money  to  finish  up  the  work  of  this  committee  and  to 
see  that  everj'thing  possible  was  done  to  further  this  plan. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  There  is  no  question  but  what  the  State  of  Tennessee 
will  heartily  cooperate  with  the  Government  in  legislation  of  this 
kind  ? 

Mr.  NELSON.  Yes;  we  want  to  cooperate  to  the  fullest  extent,  an$ 
the  suggestions  are  not  made  in  the  way  of  criticizing  the  bill,  but 
in  the  hope  that  more  soldiers  will  be  able  to  avail  themselves  of 
the  plan,  and  that  it  will  be  to  the  benefit  of  the  soldier  to  make 
these  changes. 


170  HOMES   FOK  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  MAYS.  What  character  of  land  do  you  find  in  Tennessee  will 
be  available? 

Mr.  NELSON.  I  am  not  a  soil  expert.  I  am  a  geologist,  so  I  think  it 
would  be  better  for  a  soil  expert  to  answer  that.  But  the  land  is  a 
clay  land  with,  I  suppose  it  would  be  called,  a  sandy  clay  soil. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Is  it  cut-over  land,  swamp  land,  or  what? 

Mr.  NELSON.  Cut-over  land,  gently  undulating.  The  elevation  is 
about  1,800  feet,  fine  water,  fine  living  conditions,  good  railroad 
facilities,  and  close  to  market. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Did  you  find  comparatively  large  tracts? 

Mr.  NELSON.  We  found  tracts  from  probably  20,000  acres  "down  to 
two  or  three  hundred  acres — all  mixed  up.  There  are  some  large 
holdings  by  lumber  companies,  some  small  holdings  by  people  that 
have  bought  land  and  cultivated  part  of  it,  and  by  people  who  have 
bought  more  than  they  could  cultivate.  I  would  be  glad  to  road  a 
letter  from  one  or  two  of  the  men  that  are  in  that  vicinity,  if  you 
would  like  to  have  it. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  are  confident,  are  you,  that  the  Government, 
through  the  cooperation  of  the  States,  will  get  these  lands  at  what 
they  are  worth,  or  at  least  not  any  more  than  they  are  worth,  and 
that  there  will  be  no  real  estate  imposition  of  any  kind? 

Mr.  NELSON.  We  had  that  trouble  when  we  started.  We  found 
there  were  some  real  estate  men  trying  to  make  something  out  of  it, 
and  we  did  away  with  that  immediately  by  taking  options  in  the  name 
of  the  trustee  and  refusing  to  have  anything  to  do  with  people  who 
had  optioned  their  lands  to  real  estate  men.  We  went  into  other 
sections  and  got  land  directly  from  the  owners. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  It  is  a  State  matter,  then  ? 

Mr.  NELSON.  It  is  a  State  matter  through  the  official  State  com- 
mittee, and  there  will  be  no  profiteering  of  any  kind  in  the  lands 
that  have  been  submitted. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Mr.  Nelson,  I  would  like  to  ask  about  what  acreage 
you  think  would  be  proper  for  these  farms  in  Tennessee. 

Mr.  NELSON.  Well,  that  is  a  question  for  an  agricultural  man 
again. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Well,  you  have  given  a  figure  here  of  about  $2,000  for 
cost  of  the  land.  I  believe. 

Mr.  NELSON.  Well,  that  would  be  a  basis,  I  suppose,  of  a  30  or  40 
acre  farm.  Now,  I  don't  know  what  size  farms  they  intend  to  give 
the  soldiers.  I  had  to  use  some  basis  in  making  a  figure,  and  I  just 
took  a  $2,000  basis  as  about  the  smallest  basis  that  could  be  taken. 

Mr.  MAYS.  I  wanted  to  know  what  acreage  would  be  necessary  for 
them  to  properly  support  themselves  and  families  on  a  Tennessee 
farm. 

Mr.  NELSON.  It  would  be  better  for  them  to  have  a  larger  acreage. 

Mr.  MAYS.  About  what  acreage? 

Mr.  NELSON.  I  should  say  from  80  to  100  acres. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Mr.  Mondell' brought  out  the  fact  that  these  applicants 
were  presumed — would  be  presumed — to  help  in  the  improvement  of 
their  farms  and  make  their  first  payment  in  that  way,  and  the 
same  in  regard  to  the  buildings.  Would  that  modify  your  views 
in  regard  to  the  percentage  to  be  paid  in  the  beginning  by  the 
soldier,  the  fact  that  he  would  be  allowed  to  work  part  of  this  out 
instead  of  paying  cash? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  171 

Mr.  NELSON.  Well,  if  he  did  work  it  out,  in  order  to  get  the  maxi- 
mum loan  from  the  Government  in  every  case,  he  has  got  to  put  up, 
as  I  understand  it,  the  cash  payment,  and  that  would  be  $533  on 
his  live  stock  and  $600  on  his  improvements. 

Mr.  MAYS.  On  the  live  stock  that  is  true,  but  when  it  would  come 
to  buildings  Mr.  Mondell  pointed  out  that  he  would  be  permitted 
to  help  in  the  construction  of  buildings,  and  in  hauling  material 
and  things  of  that  kind,  and  make  his  payments  on  the  buildings 
largely  in  that  way,  and  in  fencing  the  land  he  could  also  help  pay  it. 

Mr.  NELSON.  The  Government  is  going  to  lend  him  $1,200  for  his 
improvements,  if  that  does  not  exceed  three-quarters  of  the  cost  of 
the  improvements.  In  other  words,  he  would  have  to  put  up  $400. 

Mr.  MAYS.  In  labor  it  might  be. 

Mr.  NELSON.  Well,  I  don't  know  whether  he  could  put  it  up  in 
labor.  As  I  understood  it,  that  would  have  to  be  a  cash  payment. 
Now,  if  the  Government  would  accept  preferred  payments  in  labor, 
in  lieu  of  the  $400,  that  might  make  a  difference  in  the  improvements. 

Mr.  MAYS.  That  is  what  I  wanted  to  know,  if  that  would  change 
your  percentage. 

Mr.  NELSON.  It  might  change  it,  but  all  the  Government  wants 
is  protection  from  the  soldier,  and  10  per  cent  will  protect  the  Gov- 
ernment on  any  improvements,  and  20  per  cent  of  the  total  cost  of 
any  live  stock  bought  will  protect  the  Government  on  live  stock. 

Mr.  B ARBOUR.  Mr.  Nelson,  Mr.  Mondell  was  also  of  the  opinion 
that  the  amount  stated,  $1,600,  as  a  maximum  for  buildings,  and 
$1,300,  I  believe,  and  something — $1,333 — for  equipment  of  live 
stock,  was  excessive;  that  they  would  not  require  that  much;  that 
the  buildings,  satisfactory  buildings,  might  be  constructed  for  six 
or  seven  or  eight  hundred  dollars,  and  three  or  four  hundred  dollars 
might  cover  their  equipment — do  you  think  that  would  give  a  soldier 
a  good  start  in  the  way  of  buildings  and  equipment,  that  amount  of 
investment  ? 

Mr.  NELSON.  In  Tennessee — I  am  only  speaking  from  the  Tennes- 
see standpoint 

Mr.  BARBOUR  (interposing).  I  realize  that. 

Mr.  NELSON.  In  the  section  where  this  project  is  located,  in  order 
to  build  a  satisfactory  barn,  a  farm  residence,  fences,  it  would  take 
that  $1,600.  I  don't  see  how  he  could  possibly  buy  the  necessary 
live  stock  for  less  than  $1,200.  If  he  gets  a  span  of  mules,  a  cow, 
and  a  brood  sow.  he  wouldn't  have  much  money  left. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  He  would  need  certain  implements,  too. 

Mr.  NELSON.  Yes;  he  would  have  to  get  his  implements,  too. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  That  same  thought  occurred  to  me  during  the  course 
of  these  arguments. 

Mr.  NELSON.  We  studied  the  matter  very  thoroughly  and  did  not 
make  the  suggestion  until  we  had  gone  over  the  cost  and  talked 
with  people  in  that  section.  We  had  one  member  on  our  committee 
that  used  to  live  in  that  very  section.  Before  we  finally  decided  to 
make  these  recommendations,  we  went  over  the  situation  with  people 
that  were  living  in  that  section  at  the  present  time. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  My  opinion  is  that  the  first  question  a  soldier  is 
going  to  ask  us  when  he  starts  to  consider  this  proposition  is  how 
much  money  he  will  have  to  put  up. 


172  HOMES  FOK  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  NELSON.  Well,  now,  of  course  under  the  present  plan,  he  can 
put  up  $1,033,  and  it  is  most  probable  that  in  order  to  get  a  good 
start,  a  satisfactory  start,  he  would  have  to  put  that  amount  of 
money  up.  Under  the  suggested  plan,  in  order  to  get  the  same 
amount  of  money  from  the  Government  he  would  put  up  $500  and 
the  Government  would  have  adequate  protection. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Mr.  Nelson,  isn't  this  the  idea :  We  don't  expect  the 
boys  to  come  around  with  $1,000  in  their  pockets,  but  we  do  expect 
them  to  come  around  with  their  muscle  and  ready  to  go  to  work, 
and  if  the  Government,  for  instance,  enters  in  a  contract  with 
them  that  they  shall  do  a  certain  amount  of  work  for  a  certain 
amount  of  money,  or  even  a  day's  pay,  or  whatever  the  arrangement 
is,  they  will  be  allowed  to  earn  the  money  or  do  enough  work  to 
give  them  this  advance?  Isn't  that  the  idea?  We  don't  want  to 
fix  it  so  that  it  will  shut  them  out. 

Mr.  NELSON.  No,  that  is  my  very  idea  in  making  the  suggestions 
that  it  would  not  shut  out  the  soldier,  and  the  Government  would 
still  be  protected.  The  Government  doesn't  want  to  shut  out  any 
soldier,  and  doesn't  want  to  do  anything  but  receive  protection,  as 
I  gather  it,  from  the  soldier. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  As  I  understand  Mr.  Taylor's  question,  if  the  Gov- 
ernment is  willing  to  accept  the  soldier's  labor  at  a  certain  value  in 
lieu  of  coin,  that  would  answer  your  objection,  wouldn't  it? 

Mr.  NELSON.  How  is  the  soldier  going  to  live  and  support  his 
family  ? 

Mr.  BARBOUR,  Well,  I  don't  know  how  he  would  support  his 
family. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Those  that  haven't  got  families,  of  course,  some  of 
them  have,  but  there  are  two  or  three  ways  of  looking  at  it.  For 
instance,  if  you  would  start  the  boys  at  working  at  $4  per  day,  they 
might,  as  has  been  suggested  by  Brother  Kent — they  might  have 
their  land  paid  for,  and  not  have  very  much  turned  in  on  the  whole 
business  at  that  rate.  We  have  got  to  get  some  results,  you  know,  in 
clearing  and  work,  and  I  don't  think  that  the  amount  is  so  important 
as  it  is  that  we  make  some  arrangement  whereby  they  can  go  ahead 
and  do  the  work  and  be  given  an  allowance  for  it,  and  guarantee 
the  Government,  and  yet  get  results.  That  is  what  we  want.  We 
want  them  to  do  some  work  there. 

Mr.  NELSON.  Yes,  but  if  it  goes  put  that  a  soldier  had  to  pay,  either 
in  wages  on  deferred  payment,  or  in  cash,  $1,000,  roughly,  in  order  to 
avail  himself  of  this  plan,  I  think  it  woul'd  hurt  the  plan. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  We  don't  want  to  make  it  prohibitive. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Suppose  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  who,  I 
understand,  will  be  given  wide  discretionary  powers  in  this  matter, 
lays  down  a  rule  that  a  soldier  working  on  one  of  these  projects 
shall  receive  a  certain  wage,  and  that  if  he  has  a  famliy  there  would 
be  allotted  to  that  family  at  least  as  much  as  was  allotted  to  the 
soldier's  family  during  his  service  in  the  Army,  or  even  more,  out 
of  his  wages;  wouldn't  that  be  satisfactory? 

Mr.  NELSON.  Well,  from  the  soldiers  that  I  have  talked  to  that 
have  been  over  in  France  and  have  been  in  the  country  here,  that 
have  had  allotments  sent  home,  and  when  they  paid  Government 
insurance,  that  these  soldiers  have  not  any  money. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  173 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  That  is  true;  but  they  will  be  saving  a  certain 
amount  of  their  wages,  which  will  be  applied  on  their  land.  That 
will  be  a  direct  saving. 

Mr.  NELSON.  Why  do  you  feel  they  will  do  that,  when  they  haven't 
done  it  in  the  last  two  or  three  years  ? 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  The  Government  will  do  it  for  them,  maybe.  The 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  will  evolve  a  plan  by  which  that  can  be 
done. 

Mr.  NELSON.  Of  course,  I  don't  know  anything  about  that. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  No;  I  don't  either:  but  I  am  just  trying  to  get  in- 
formation. 

Mr.  NELSON.  If  such  a  plan  as  that  could  be  worked  out,  I  think 
it  would  be  very  satisfactory. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Nelson,  you  have  had  some  experience  in  han- 
dling land  and  seeing  that  men  purchased  this  land  for  the  purpose 
of  farming  in  your  part  of  the  State  ? 

Mr.  NELSON.  My  experience  in  land  has  been  confined  to  this  settle- 
ment work,  and  the  settlement  work  has  been  confined  to  the  last 
8  or  12  months — since  this  matter  came  up.  I  am  the  State  geologist 
of  Tennessee,  and  my  work  is  mining  work — in  developing  the  min- 
eral resources — but  I  took  an  interest  in  this  matter  because  I  felt 
it  was  one  of  the  important  matters  coming  after  the  war. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Have  you  lived  any  considerable  part  of  your  life 
on  a  farm? 

Mr.  NELSON.  I  have  lived  in  the  mountains  and  I  have  lived  on  the 
Cumberland  Plateau  several  years,  in  the  section  that  is  under  con- 
sideration— not  continuously, "but  for  several  months  at  a  time. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  mean  in  connection  with  the  farming  industry  or 
mineral  industry? 

Mr.  NELSON.  In  connection  with  the  mineral  industry.  The  sug- 
gestions that  I  am  making  are  made  by  the  board,  and  I  was  re- 
quested to  present  them.  One  of  the  members  of  the  board,  Dr.  F.  M. 
McRee,  is  commissioner  of  agriculture  of  Tennessee,  a  man  who  is 
about  70  years  old  and  has  been  a  farmer  all  his  life;  and  another 
member,  Dr.  H.  A.  Morgan,  one  of  the  foremost  agricultural  ex- 
perts in  the  South,  in  charge  of  the  Tennessee  Experimental  Station, 
Bureau  of  Extension.  The  other  two  members  on  the  committee  are 
Mr.  Welch,  who  has  been  a  timberman,  a  lumberman,  in  the  past,  and 
Mr.  Will  Manier,  a  business  man,  and  myself,  a  mining  man.  That 
is  the  personnel  of  ^the  committee,  and  the  committee  as  a  whole  has 
made  these  suggestions. 

Mr.  RAKER.  From  your  observations,  now,  you  find  that  the  South- 
ern States  are  practically  in  favor  of  this  kind  of  legislation  ? 

Mr.  NELSON.  I  think  they  are;  yes.  I  think  that  practically,  with 
one  or  two  minor  exceptions,  the  whole  South  is  very  greatly  in  favor 
of  this  legislation. 

Mr.  RAKER.  From  what  you  have  observed  in  regard  to  this  ques- 
tion, would  you  provide  a  completed  farm — I  use  the  word  "  com- 
pleted "  to  generally  describe  it — and  turn  it  over  to  the  soldier,  or 
sell  it  to  him — call  it  his  homestead — or  would  you  provide  them  a 
home  to  live  in,  a  housse,  a  few  of  the  necessary  buildings,  a  barn,  a 
chicken  house,  and  a  few  other  necessary  outbuildings  upon  part  of 
his  land,  cleared  where  it  can  be  done  with  cooperation  or  other- 
wise individually,  and  then  allow  him  to  work  out  the  balance  him- 


174  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

self  in  degrees,  so  that  he  would  have,  in  addition  to  his  cultivation, 
something  to  work  on  for  the  next  eight  or  ten  years  ? 

Mr.  NELSON.  Well,  I  don't  think  that  I  am  competent  to  answer 
that  question. 

Mr.  RAKER.  All  right,  then;  I  thought  maybe  you  had  given  it 
some  consideration. 

Mr.  NELSON.  I  will  say  that  the  committee  had  given  this  con- 
sideration. The  members  of  the  committee  in  discussion  seemed  to 
think  that  it  would  be  better  to  turn  a  practically  completed  farm 
over  to  the  soldier,  probably  with  a  very  small  percentage  of  the 
farm  to  be  cleared  after  it  is  turned  over. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  don't  know  upon  what  theory  they  base  that, 
do  you? 

Mr.  NELSON.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  really  a  change  of  thought  from  all  our  ex- 
perience for  the  last  50  years  in  this  country. 

Mr.  NELSON.  That  was  just  the  individual  opinion  of  the  members 
of  the  committee — the  agricultural  members  of  the  Tennessee  com- 
mittee. Of  course,  they  suggested  this,  that  it  might  not  be  neces- 
sary for  a  man  to  have  all  of  his  improvements  on  the  farm  when  it 
was  turned  over  to  him;  that  those  could  be  built  in  the  next  year 
or  two. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  would  like  to  ask  if  you  have  made  any  investiga- 
tion as  to  the  segregated  proposition  ? 

Mr.  NELSON.  As  to  the  what  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  The  segregated  unit.  That  is,  as  it  has  been  discussed 
here,  giving  the  soldier  an  opportunity  to  buy  a  farm,  the  Govern- 
ment cooperating  with  him,  outside  of  what  has  been  designated  as 
a  community  project. 

Mr.  NELSON.  You  mean  buying  an  individual  farm? 

Mr.  WHITE.  Buy  him  an  individual  farm ;  yes. 

Mr.  NELSON.  Well,  I  have  read  something  of  such  plans.  I  think 
that  was  tried  in  Australia.  In  places  where  the  plan  has  been  tried 
it  has  not  been  a  success.  They  have  not  been  able  to  keep  up  with 
the  settlers  that  they  have  placed. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  if  you  think  there  are  numer- 
ous opportunities,  or  would  there  be  frequent  opportunities,  where 
the  proposition  could  be  successfully  carried  out  in  your  State  ? 

Mr.  NELSON.  By  taking  individual  farms  not  connected? 

Mr.  WHITE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NELSON.  I  don't  think  it  could,  because  the  farmers  in  many 
sections  are  using  methods  that  are  not  improved.  They  are  farm- 
ing like  they  did  50  years  ago,  and  if  you  would  place  a  new  man  in 
such  a  community  he  might  try  to  use  improved  methods  for  a  short 
time,  but  he  would  very  probably  fall  back  into  the  rut  that  is  being 
followed  by  everyone  surrounding  him. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Well,  aren't  there  many  localities  in  your  State  where 
they  are  using  the  improved  progressive  methods? 

Mr.  NELSON.  Where  they  are  being  used,  the  lands,  I  think,  are  too 
high  to  be  procured  under  this  act.  The  cost  of  the  land  is  too  high. 

Mr.  RAKER.  There  is  always  on  the  part  of  the  Government  sort 
of  a  paterfamilias  of  this  soldier,  watching  his  farm  ing,  isn't  there? 

Mr.  NELSON.  No;  but  the  committee  thought  that  in  a  large  project 
that  it  would  certainly  need  an  agricultural  expert  there  at  all  times 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  175 

for  consultation  on  any  point  that  might  come  up,  just  like  the  Ten- 
nessee University  has  agricultural  experimental  stations  in  every 
section  of  the  State.  They  would  have  an  agricultural  agent  for  that 
section  that  could  be  called  upon  whenever  he  was  needed. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Nelson,  you  may  have  stated  it,  but  I  did  not 
get  it  if  you  did — what  is  the  average  price  at  which  you  can  secure 
these  lands  that  you  contemplate  securing? 

Mr.  NELSON.  The  options  that  we  have  taken  ranged  from  $5  to 
$15  an  acre. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  what  will  it  cost  to  clear  those  lands?  I  un- 
derstand that  some  of  them  are  in  stumps. 

Mr.  NELSON.  Yes;  I  can't  tell  you  what  the  cost  would  be  now.  I 
can  state  that  the  N.,  C.  &  St.  L.  Railway  several  years  ago  cleared 
up  a  40-acre  farm  on  the  Plateau,  and  their  figures  for  clearing  that 
were  about,  I  think,  $40  an  acre. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Was  that  very  heavily  timbered? 

Mr.  NELSON.  Well,  all  of  that  land  on  the  Plateau  is  about  the 
same. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  the  character  of  the  timber  ? 

Mr.  NELSON.  Mainly  oak;  different  varieties  of  oak.  They  are 
hardwoods. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  know  how  many  feet  it  runs  to  the  acre? 

Mr.  NELSON.  I  couldn't  say. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  If  it  is  cut-over  land,  it  hasn't  got  very  many  feet  to 
the  acre,  has  it? 

Mr.  NELSON.  Most  all  of  the  large  timber  has  practically  been  cut 
off.  There  is  small  timber  there. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Would  the  land  require  fertilizing  before  it  could  be 
successfully  available  ? 

Mr.  NELSON.  It  would  require  liming.  ,  It  may  require  other  things. 
I  could  not  stand  that,  but  I  know  they  use  lime  in  that  section. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  process  did  the  railroad  use  to  remove  the 
stumps,  do  you  know? 

Mr.  NELSON.  I  could  not  say.  I  think  they  pulled  one  tree  against 
the  other. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  further  questions  of  Mr.  Nelson? 
If  not,  we  thank  you  very  much. 

Now,  I  should  like  to  get  some  idea  as  to  how  many  more  witnesses 
we  will  have,  in  order  to  see  whether  we  can  not  close  these  hearings 
by  Friday  at  the  latest.  We  have  Mr.  Davis,  of  the  Reclamation 
Service,  and  the  Governor  of  Oklahoma  was  to  be  here  to-day,  as  I 
understood  it. 

Mr.  VAILE.  And  Mr.  Atkeson  again,  if  he  desires  to  appear. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes.  And  Gov.  Gooding,  of  Idaho,  and  sev- 
eral members  from  the  State  have  signified  their  desire  to  appear 
before  the  committee.  I  think  it  might  be  well  to  assign  Friday  to 
the  Members  of  Congress. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Mr.  Kent,  a  former  member  of  this  committee,  is 
here.  Do  you  wish  to  make  a  statement,  Mr.  Kent? 

Mr.  KENT.  I  will  make  one  if  you  wish  me  to. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  be  pleased  to  hear  you  now.  then.  You 
might  tell  the  committee  just  whom  you  represent  and  give  your 

133319 — 19 12 


176  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  WILLIAM  KENT,  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 
TARIFF  COMMISSION. 

Mr.  KENT.  I  was  formerly  a  Member  of  Congress,  from  1911  to 
1917.  Since  then  I  have  been  a  member  of  the  United  States  Tariff 
Commission.  I  was  a  member  of  this  committee  for  four  years,  and 
I  have  been  deeply  interested  in  land  and  land  problems  all  my  life, 
and  I  have  had  the  benefit  of  sitting  in  with  Dr.  Meade,  Avho  is  the 
main  author  of  this  bill,  who  is  undoubtedly  the  greatest  land-settle- 
ment expert  in  this  country,  and  probably  in  any  country.  He  is  a 
man  who  had  for  nine  years  worked  out  the  land-settlement  policy 
of  Australia  and  is  now  just  finishing  allotments  in  a  plan  in  Cali- 
fornia along  these  lines,  and  I  am  sorry  that  the  committee  can  not 
avail  themselves  of  his  presence.  If  you  have  time,  I  should  think  it 
would  be  the  best  thing  to  do  to  send  for  him  and  let  him  make  a 
statement. 

Xow,  this  bill,  I  am  going  to  criticize  certain  features  of  it.  al- 
though I  am  very  much  in  favor  of  the  legislation — the  general  idea. 

In  the  first  place,  the  question  of  land  settlement  is  so  much  bigger 
than  any  soldier  proposition  that  I  am  sorry  you  put  the  cart  before 
the  horse.  I  am  sorry  that  the  legislation  did  not  boar  the  caption 
of  "A  bill  for  land  settlement  or  redistribution  of  population  with 
preference  to  those  who  have  served  in  the  war,"  instead  of  starting 
out  with  it  as  an  aid  to  soldiers.  The  worst  economic  feature  of  our 
country,  to  my  mind — and  a  bad  social  feature — is  the  overgrowth 
of  the  cities,  which  are  a  burden  on  production.  The  same  thing  is 
true  of  even  the  smaller  towns.  We  are  getting  away  from  produc- 
tion, and  we  are  putting  too  many  people  into  the  cities  and  into 
the  towns — we  are  paying  too  much  for  distribution.  There  must 
be  a  redistribution  of  population. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Kent,  before  going  further,  it  might  be  well 
for  you  to  tell  the  committee  what  experience  you  have  had  in  farm- 
ing and  in  raising  live  stock  and  kindred  subjects. 

Mr.  KENT.  For  over  30  years  I  was  engaged  in  cattle  feeding  and 
farming  in  Nebraska  on  a  large  scale.  For  the  same  length  of  time, 
and  up  to  two  years  ago  I  owned  a  big  ranch  in  Nevada.  Both  were 
considerable  institutions.  Although  I  don't  believe  in  it,  I  have 
played  the  game  of  land  speculation  in  about  14  States,  and  I  am 
free  to  confess  that  I  have  reaped  where  I  have  not  sown  and  have 
had  pretty  good  luck.  So  I  am  more  or  less  familiar  with  farm  con- 
ditions all  over  the  country  and  with  the  land  problem. 

If  you  start  toward  the  redistribution  of  population,  you  are 
starting  on  the  right  and  permanent  track;  3*011  are  doing  what  you 
want  to  do  for  the  soldier  when  you  give  him  full  preference,  but  you 
don't  bar  other  people.  If  the  soldier  can  do  this  work  that  you  think 
he  is  fit  to  do,  that  is  all  right;  on  the  other  hand,  if  you  start  out 
only  with  soldier  relief,  the  time  is  going  to  come  when  the  soliders 
will  be  very  apt  to  think  that  they  are  a  privileged  class  as  against 
other  people.  You  have  seen  some  of  that  spirit  in  the  past,  this 
soldier  privilege,  and  while  we  want  to  do  the  gracious  and  grateful 
thing  for  the  soldier,  we  don't  want  to  have  the  soldier  to  get  the  idea 
that  he  is  to  inherit  the  earth  as  against  other  people  that  could  prop- 
erly use  it.  He  should  be  given  preference  rather  than  to  have  tli<> 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  177 

tiling  back  to  the  land  assistance  entirely  confined  to  him.  After  all 
the  soldier  is  a  citizen  and  every  citizen  'is  a  potential  soldier. 

A  very  important  part  of  this  bill  is  the  section  which  provides  that 
these  lands  can  not  be  alienated  from  the  settler  for  10  years.  Ten. 
years  is  better  than  nothing,  but  a  million  years  would  be  still  better. 
I  can  not  see  how  you  are  going  to  hold  settlers  on  land  and  continue 
to  be  certain  of  continuing  work  on  land,  and  production  on  land,  if 
you  put  this  land  under  an  absolute  title  that  a  man  can  part  with. 
This  is  just  ordinary  sense  if  you  try  to  figure  out  how  3-011  are  going 
to  avoid  farm  tenancy  and  how  you  are  going  to  have  the  land  fully 
and  permanently  worked.  You  will  find  that  parting  with  full  title, 
throwing  it  into  the  speculative  class  of  investment,  where  a  man  can. 
go  off  and  leave  it  untilled,  or  run  up  the  price  on  the  next  fellow,  is 
iiot  going  to  accomplish  your  result. 

Take  the  reclamation  in  the  West — Mr.  Davis  will,  no  doubt,  bear 
me  out  there — of  course,  the  idea  there  was  to  provide  for  the  settler. 
I  don't  think  the  method  by  which  the  settler  was  cared  for  was  en- 
tirely judicious.  I  don't  think  there  was  nearly  enough  done  to  put 
the  land  in  shape  so  that  the  man  could  go  ahead  and  begin  produc- 
ing, and  thereby  make  himself  solid.  There  were  a  tremendous  lot 
of  miserable  failures,  or  unnecessary  suffering,  that  came  from  not 
staking  the  man,  as  he  is  staked  under  the  terms  of  this  bill. 

But  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  another  fact,  and  that  is  while 
Congress  was  legislating  for  the  settler,  providing  an  opportunity 
for  him  to  a  measurable  extent,  at  the  same  time  there  went  along  the 
buying  out  of  settlers,  cultivated  areas  by  large  owners,  especially 
large  cattle  men.  In  the  Truckee-Carson  project,  which  certainly  was 
established  for  settlers,  and  to  give  people  of  moderate  means  a  better 
chance,  I  am  informed  that  the  largest  cattle  people  in  Nevada  have 
purchased  considerable  tracts  of  the  best  land. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  on  a  Government  reclamation  project? 

Mr.  KENT.  Yes,  sir.  The  Truckee-Carson  project.  That  land  has 
been  purchased  by  Humphrey  &  Moffitt,  the  cattlemen.  I  under- 
stand they  have  considerable  areas  of  the  very  best  land  in  that  pro- 
ject, and  that  project  certainty  never  was  created  for  that  purpose. 
Humphrey  &  Moffitt  had  plenty  of  land  to  go  out  on  and  do  their 
own  reclaiming  and  not  use  Government  money  without  interest, 
which  is.  in  effect,  what  happened  on  these  projects. 

Mr.  CHAIRMAN.  They  purchased  it  from  the  settlers? 

Mr.  KENT.  They  purchased  it  from  the  settlers.  The  settlers  were 
allowed  to  sell,  and  in  some  cases  they  did  sell,  and  we  have  a  re- 
sumption of  large  holdings  in  there,  which  is  not  what  we  wanted. 
If  any  place  in  the  world  needs  self-sustaining  families,  it  is  the 
State  of  Nevada.  There  is  a  comparatively  small  area  available  for 
such  purposes,  and  I  am  informed  that  this  process  is  going  on. 

Now,  I  am  informed  that  in  Idaho  one  of  the  projects  there — 
Mr.  Meade  told  me  this — I  can't  give  you  the  name  of  the  project 
in  detail — that  in  one  of  the  projects  there,  there  have  been  very 
large  purchases  by  wealthy  interests  of  the  best  lands  in  the  projects. 
And  again  your  settler  gets  out;  your  State  is  impoverished  in  the 
quality  of  its  population. 

Mr/SMir-H  of  Idaho.  Will  you  be  a  little  more  explicit  with  refer- 
ence to  your  statement  concerning  Idaho? 


178  HOMES  FOE   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  KENT.  I  can't  be  any  more  explicit. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  I  know  of  no  such  condition  as  that  referred 
prevailing  on  Government  reclamation  projects  i  niny  State. 

Mr.  KENT.  There  is  none? 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Mr.  KENT.  Well,  Dr.  Meade  told  me  so. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  The  farms  are  really  being  divided,  instead 
of  falling  into  the  hands  of  corporations  or  large  holders. 

Mr.  RAKER.  How  is  that? 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  The  irrigated  lands  are  being  divided  up 
because  it  has  been  discovered  that  160  acres  of  irrigated  land  is 
oftentimes  too  large  to  farm  advantageously. 

Mr.  KENT.  Well,  I  wish  you  would  inquire  of  Mr.  Davis  on  that 
specific  question.  I  only  roughly  quote  what  Dr.  Mead  told  me, 
that  there  had  been  this  tendency,  and  I  am  definitely  informed 
that  Humphrey  &  Moffit  have  large  amounts  of  the  Truckee-Carson 
project. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Right  there,  Mr.  Kent — the  only  reason  that  they  got 
it,  if  they  got  any,  during  this  last  year  under  this  legislation, 
irrigated  land,  was  that  they  owned  it  before.  That  is  the  trouble 
under  these  projects,  that  the  people  owned  the  land  before  the  proj- 
est  was  inaugurated,  but  under  the  law  you  can  only  have  160 
acres.  I  agree  with  you  on  that,  and  I  am  going  to  offer  an  amend- 
ment to  this  legislation  that  a  man  can  only  have  one  homestead 
under  the  project. 

Mr.  KENT.  The  serious  feature  is  that  this  homestead  once  acquired 
falls  into  the  speculative  class.  You  have  no  certainty  that  the  land 
is  going  to  be  worked.  New  South  Wales  adopted  the  limited  title 
scheme,  and  it  worked  successfully  there,  and  I  think  it  should  be 
embodied  in  this  legislation.  I  have  no  idea  that  it  will  be,  and  in- 
deed I  could  not  expect  to  see  such  a  great  question  taken  up  in  this 
particular  emergency.  I  wish  you  would  lengthen  the  time  from 
10  years  to  20  years,  if  you  can,  in  which  that  land  can  not  be 
alienated,  and  wait  for  the  people  hereafter  to  work  out  the  general 
scheme  of  land  tenure. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Mr.  Kent,  may  I  ask  you  a  question?  Do 
you  not  think  it  would  be  wise  to  amend  the  bill,  providing  that  the 
transfer  should  only  be  made  to  a  soldier?  Because  there  are  many 
circumstances  that  arise  which  make  it  impossible  for  a  man  to  go 
ahead  with  his  farming  activities. 

Mr.  KENT.  As  I  started  out  to  say,  Mr.  Smith,  I  think  the  mis- 
take is  made  in  making  the  soldier  the  sole  beneficiary  here. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  What  will  you  do  with  the  man  who  loses 
his  health  and  is  unable  to  keep  on  with  his  payments? 

Mr.  KENT.  Under  the  plan  I  propose,  I  would  credit  him  with 
everything  that  he  has  put  on  the  land,  and  if  you  have  a  limited 
tenure — I  am  talking  now  about  the  scheme  that  1  am  figuring  on — 
if  you  have  a  limited  tenure  and  the  time  came  when  a  man  had  to 
get  off,  owing  to  ill  health,  or  for  other  reason,  he  would  have  for 
sale  everything  that  he  had  contributed  to  the  land,  less  what  he 
owed  on  the  land.  The  idea  would  be  for  him  to  have  only  for  sale 
that  which  he  had  contributed,  and  I  would  either  guarantee  thai  tln> 
Government  would  take  the  property  off  his  hands,  or  permit  him 
to  sell  to  some  other  qualified  farmer. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  To  some  soldier? 

Mr.  KENT.  Well,  you  are  confining  this  to  soldiers.  I  think  it  is 
unfortunate.  I  would  give  the  soldier  the  preference,  but  I  would 
aim  the  bill  to  the  end  of  a  general  redistribution  of  population. 
There  are  thousands  of  men  being  wasted  in  the  cities,  who  would 
make  the  best  of  agriculturalists,  men  that  love  the  land  and  could 
make  a  great  success  on  it,  but  under  our  system  they  get  into  the 
cities  and  stay  there,  and  there  is  no  means  of  getting  them  out. 
If  you  do  get  people  out  on  the  land,  the  only  way  to  hold  them 
on  the  land,  to  keep  them  from  selling  speculating,  and  getting  off 
the  land  is  to  retain  part  of  the  title  in  the  State  or  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment. 

Then  you  have  an  assurance  that  the  land  will  be  occupied.  This 
sort  of  title  would  carry  with  it  the  right  of  inheritance,  with  a 
reasonable  length  of  time  for  the  heirs  to  show  that  they  would  work, 
the  land.  If  they  could  not  work  the  land,  they  ought  to  have  to^ 
sell  it.  The  land  ought  to  be  kept  busy  by  some  one  or  other.  The 
only  way  I  can  see  to  keeping  it  busy  is  to  keep  it  out  of  the  specu- 
lative class  of  investment.  You  are  only  adding  another  limit  to> 
the  terms  of  tenure  anyway,  because  you  have  got  tax  laws  respect- 
ing title  to  all  lands.  In  the  State  of  Maine  they  tell  a  man  how  he 
can  cut  timber  on  his  own  property.  You  have  countless  limitations 
on  this  so-called  fee  simple  title,  and  you  can  call  this  another  limi- 
tation on  the  same  thing,  or  you  can  call  it  a  partial  title.  But  to. 
me  this  question  of  title  is  the  most  important  thing  of  the  lot. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Mr.  Kent,  doesn't  the  plan  that  you  are  now  suggest- 
ing virtually  make  the  Government  a  landlord  and  the  settler  a 
tenant  instead  of  a  home  owner? 

Mr.  KENT.  Well,  that  of  course — in  a  sense,  the  State  or  the  Gov- 
ernment, whichever  retains  part  of  the  title,  is  the  landlord.  I  don't 
see  any  hardship  about  that.  A  man  knows  what  the  terms  are  going; 
to  be  for  a  long  period  ahead.  He  can  be  taxed  out  of  existence  any- 
way, and  his  tenure  can  be  curtailed  in  many  ways.  The  mere  fact 
that  he  has  something  to  sell  doesn't  make  him  more  or  less  a  home: 
owner  than  he  would  be  if  he  knew  that  he  could  stay  there  and 
his  children  after  him,  as  long  as  the  land  is  worked. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Would  you  make  this  partial  title  subject  to  taxation? 

Mr.  KENT.  That  is  a  matter  of  adjustment  of  rental  of  land  and 
ownership  of  improvements. 

Mr.  MAYS.  And  in  case  he  should  not  pay  the  taxes,  what  would 
you  do  then  with  the  title  ? 

Mr.  KENT.  Well,  that  question  of  taxation  would  go  directly  up 
to  the  State.  My  idea  would  be  that  the  State  should  retain  this  title 
and  take  a  certain  amount  of  rental  for  a  period  of  10  years,  subject 
to  readjustment  at  the  end  of  10  years.  That  would  be  in  lieu  of 
taxes  and  out  of  that  the  Government  would  have  to  get  its  portion 
or  there  would  have  to  be  separate  payments  made  to  the  Govern- 
ment in  addition  to  that  rental.  That  would  be  the  idea.  I  only 
make  that  suggestion,  and,  as  I  say,  the  only  thing  that  I  could  hope 
or  ask  of  you  gentlemen  would  be  to  extend  the  period  in  which  the 
land  could  not  be  alienated,  and,  as  Mr.  Eaker  suggests,  provide 
against  large  holdings. 


180  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  think  we  ought  to  revert  to  the  policy  that  ^e 
originally  had  a  year  ago,  making  it  open  to  everybody  instead  of 
to  soldiers  only  ? 

Mr.  KENT.  I  think  you  ought  to  make  it  open  to  everybody,  but 
give  the  soldier  the  preference.  There  Avould  be  lots  of  cases  where 
no  soldier  would  want  to  avail  himself  of  it. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  think  Secretary  Lane's  thought  was  to  pass  this  bill 
primarily  to  give  the  soldier  the  right  to  come  in  and  take  advantage 
of  this  law,  and  then  at  the  expiration  of  a  year  or  so,  if  there  were 
not  sufficient  soldiers  to  take  up  all  that  the  Government  had  pro- 
vided for,  that  the  appropriation  authorized  the  Interior  Depart- 
ment then  to  take  care  of  other  people.  I  think  that  was  has  idea, 
but  to  start  off  by  letting  the  soldiers  feel  that  we  were  doing  some- 
thing for  them. 

Mr.  KENT.  I  think  you  are  heading  in  the  wrong  direction. 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  trouble  right  now  is  the  legislative  and  the  prac- 
tical proposition  that  if  we  made  this  general,  Mr.  Kent,  and  said 
that  even  in  a  year  we  are  going  to  open  it  up,  I  am  wondering 
whether  or  not  we  could  get  if  through  the  two  Houses. 

Mr.  KENT.  The  point  is  that  you  get  exactly  the  same  practical 
result  if  you  say  this  is  a  bill  for  general  redistribution  of  popula- 
tion and  in  aid  of  settlement,  with  full  preference  for  soldiers.  You 
are  giving  the  soldier  all  he  will  get  anyway,  but  you  would  then  be 
starting  in  the  right  way,  whereas  if  you  start  and  say,  "  This  is  a 
soldier  bill,  and  the  soldier  is  the  only  fellow  who  will  have  a  chance 
under  this  legislation,"  you  are  creating  a  privileged  class  out  of  the 
soldiers. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Do  you  not  think,  Mr.  Kent,  the  soldier  is 
entitled  to  be  placed  in  a  privileged  class? 

Mr.  KENT.  Yes ;  and  he  is,  in  fact,  with  it  the  other  wa}%  but  you 
would  not  start  another  lot  of  people  in  this  country  to  thinking 
they  are  different  from  other  people,  and  are  entitled  to  things  that 
other  people  are  not  entitled  to.  Give  them  the  first  chance,  certainly. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  What  do  you  think  of  the  suggestion  to 
provide  that  for  three  years  soldiers  should  have  a  preference  right, 
and  at  the  end  of  that  time  any  land  that  is  left  unapplied  for  should 
l>e  opened  up  to  the  civilian  population? 

Mr.  KENT.  I  think  that  would  be  better  than  the  way  you  have  it. 
I  don't  think  it  makes  any  practical  difference,  but  I  fear  that  you  are 
lieading  the  wrong  way,  creating,  perhaps  20  years  from  now,  a 
•demand  on  the  part  of  the  soldier:  "  I  must  be  recognized  as  against 
(everybody  else,"  and  I  don't  think  we  ought  to  be  doing  that.  This  is 
for  immediate  care  of  the  soldier,  and  at  the  end  of  20  years  he  ought 
not  to  be  able  to  say,  "  I  am  the  only  man  that  can  be  assisted  by  the 
Government  under  this  policy  as  it  was  started." 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Kent,  do  you  think  this  plan  could  be  made 
feasible  in  the  Eastern  and  Northern  States  as  well  as  the  West  and 
South? 

Mr.  KENT.  I  think — my  talks  with  Dr.  Mead  and  my  looking 
around  the  country  has  satisfied  me  that  Massachusetts  is  probably 
one  of  the  best  fields.  I  have  seen  some  of  the  work  there  myself. 
Mr.  Charles  R.  Crane  bought  a  very  large  tract  and  has  had  «rivut 
success  there  in  clearing  and  cultivating  and  renting,  and  he  is  will- 


HOMES   FOB   SOLDIERS.  181 

ing  to  turn  his  big  investment,  after  proving  it  successful,  over  to  the 
Government  practically  at  cost.  I  think  that  New  Jersey  has  im- 
mense tracts  of  land.  Virginia  has  lots  of  land  that  is  well  adapted 
to  this  purpose.  There  is  a  vast  area  of  land  lying  outdoors  in  North 
and  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  where  there  is  adequate  rainfall, 
good  drainage,  and  everything  but  soil  fertility.  The  land  is  easily 
broken  and  worked,  but  the  whole  thing  there  is  lack  of  soil  fertility, 
and  that  can  be  supplied  by  right  cropping  and  live  stock. 

I  think,  looking  at  the  country  as  a  whole,  that  the  greatest  benefit 
that  can  come  from  this  policy  will  be  in  cooperation  in  these  Eastern 
States  where  you  are  right  next  to  a  great  hungry  market,  instead  of 
putting  the  emphasis  where  you  have  these  immensely  long  freight 
hauls.  The  big  benefit  will  come  from  State  and  private  cooperation 
right  down  here  in  this  part  of  the  country,  in  my  opinion. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Just  another  question,  Mr.  Kent.  Referring  to 
your  idea  that  this  legislation  should  be  more  comprehensive  and 
that  the  beneficiary  should  not  be  limited  to  soldiers,  have  you  given 
any  thought  to  the  legal  question  as  to  whether  or  not  we  could 
predicate  such  legislation  as  this  on  anything  else  but  the  war  power? 

Mr.  KENT.  It  never  occurred  to  me  that  you  could  not.  Irrigation 
settlements,  by  analogy,  have  had  absolutely  nothing  to  do  with  war 
power.  Then  there  is  the  California  settlement,  which  certainly  had 
no  connection  with  the  war  power. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  was  State  settlement.  I  recall,  Mr.  Kent — it 
may  refresh  your  mind — some  question  was  raised  as  to  whether 
or  not  the  Government  could  ented  upon  any  reclamation  projects 
except  where  the  public  lands  were  concerned. 

Mr.  KENT.  Well,  you  mean  in  cooperation  with  the  States?  Of 
course,  if  the  Government  buys  land  of  private  individuals  it  be- 
comes Government  land — no  question  about  that — but  the  immediate 
idea  was  that  the  greater  amount  of  State  cooperation  you  would  have 
the  better  the  management  of  the  whole  thing  would  be,  and  the 
better  it  would  fit  into  local  conditions.  Dr.  Mead  placed  great  em- 
phasis on  the  need  of  State  cooperation  in  handling  these  things. 

Now,  you  have,  then,  the  question  as  to  whether  the  Government 
could  expend  money  in  cooperation  with  the  States  on  land  owned 
by  the  States.  Well,  I  have  never  heard  anybody  discuss  the  question 
as  to  whether  the  Government  could  spend  money  in  the  State  of 
Tennessee  in  improving  the  Mississippi  River,  have  you?  It  seems 
to  me  that  I  have  not  heard  of  any  constitutional  or  legal  objection 
being  made  to  the  Government  spending  money  in  the  States.  Does 
that  answer  your  question? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  just  wanted  to  get  your  ideas  on  it.  I  did  not 
want  to  go  into  it  at  length. 

Mr.  KENT.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  have  gone  into  this  matter  very 
carefully  and  have  here  copies  of  pamphlets  entitled,  one  of  them, 
"  Getting  Men  Back  on  the  Land  " ;  also  another,  "  Discussion  of  Land 
Tenure  and  Public  Policy."  They  may  or  maj-  not  interest  the  mem- 
bers of  the  committee. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Are  there  enough  there  for  distribution  to  the  mem- 
bers of  the  committee? 

Mr.  KENT.  Yes.    If  not,  anybody  that  wants  one  may  have  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  ask  to  have  them  inserted  in 'the  record? 


182  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

I  would  suggest,  if  agreeable  to  the  committee,  that  the  land-set- 
tlement pamphlet,  being  complete  and  closely  reasoned,  might  be 
printed  in  your  record. 

(Following  is  Mr.  Kent's  essay  delivered  at  the  labor  reconstruc- 
tion conference,  Academy  of  Political  Sciences,  New  York,  December 
7,  1918:) 

GETTING   MEN   BACK   ON    THE  LAND. 

The  war  and  its  consequent  disturbance  of  our  industry  has  brought  before 
us  in  accentuated  form  a  problem  that  has  long  been  growing — the  proper  dis- 
tribution of  our  people.  As  compared  with  rural  communities,  the  cities  have 
had  a  tremendous  relative  increase.  Few  of  us  have  appreciated  the  bane  of 
their  overgrowth.  The  chief  functions  of  the  cities  are  dual — to  assemble  labor 
for  manufacturing  production,  and  to  serve  the  purposes  of  distribution. 

The  labor-saving  device  of  propinquity  is  carried  to  such  an  extreme  as  to 
rescatter  the  assembled  people  throughout  suburban  areas.  Traffic  congestion 
necessitates  surface,  overhead,  and  underground  communication,  until  the 
expense  of  the  Panama  Canal  sinks  into  insignificance  when  compared  with 
that  of  the  intramural  transportation  of  New  York ;  while  inflated  property 
values  and  rents  in  accordance,  are  a  perpetual  burden. 

No  one  could  have  conceived  such  an  aggregation  of  waste  as  they  afford, 
and  yet  their  social  attractions  cause  the  moths  to  seek  the  candJe,  their  sheer 
mass  seems  to  create  a  power  like  that  of  gravitation.  They  defy  all  principles 
of  supply  and  demand.  Men  needed  elsewhere,  and  superfluous  in  the  cities, 
find  means  for  forcing  a  livelihood  in  the  excess  population.  Somehow  or 
other  they  create  a  place  for  themselves  and  become  a  burden  upon  necessary 
production.  A  census  of  urban  population  ministering  to  the  useless  and  ex- 
travagant e'ements  of  city  life  would  comprise  a  large  portion  of  city  dwellers. 
Even  the  mechanics  engaged  in  enlarging  the  overgrown  cities  are  wasting  time 
and  material. 

The  waste  is  largely  of  human  material.  During  years  of  vast  immigration 
influx,  the  cities  have  absorbed  and  misapplied  the  services  of  millions  of 
people  who  left  rural  employment  in  Europe  and  found  here  no  outlet  for  their 
trained  capacity.  To  the  cities  and  towns  have  gone  many  of  the  most  vigorous 
and  energetic  of  our  native  rural  population. 

Country  life  has  been  dull  and  lonely,  and  latterly  only  those  with  con- 
siderable means  need  apply  with  expectation  of  reasonable  independence. 

Every  undeserved  accretion  of  urban  population  means  advancing  land 
values,  and  wasteful  employment  in  serving  the  needs  of  ill-placed  and  unpro- 
ductive people,  who  are  either  doing  the  wrong  thing,  or  doing  the  right  thing  in 
the  wrong  place. 

On  this  account  our  per  capita  food  supplies  have  steadily  diminished,  de- 
spite our  vast  land  areas,  and  upon  the  food  supply  must  rest  our  national 
permanence  and  prosperity. 

The  spread  between  prices  received  by  the  farmer  and  paid  by  the  consumer 
has  not  boen  reduced  by  our  boasted  methods  of  distribution  and  intermediate 
handling,  but  instead  has  increased. 

Simpler  forms  of  packing  have  been  superseded  by  the  costly  can  and  carton. 
Monopoly  has  taken  a  large  mouthful,  and  neither  public  nor  private  agencies 
have  sufficiently  sought  to  save  waste,  or  to  fill  void  areas  from  areas  of 
surplus. 

The  tide  of  population  must  be  turned.  It  can  not  be  turned  except  to  lands 
now  uncultivated.  Our  coming  farmers  must  be  assured  of  adequate  reward 
for  well  directed  effort,  and  must  find  in  the  farmer's  life,  from  day  to  day, 
such  social  conditions  as  afford  a  satisfactory  answer  to  the  great  riddle: 
"What  are  we  here  for?" 

We  have  been  moving  West  in  our  agricultural  operations.  The  theory  of 
the  "  margin  of  cultivation  "  has  been  at  work,  but  the  tendency  to  abandon 
farms  near  to  great  markets  has  been  due  to  other  factors — to  bad  farming, 
bad  marketing,  lack  of  credit  and  capital,  and  to  unnecessary  soil  depletion. 
Parallel  with  this  abandonment  we  find  sporadic  patches  producing  profitable 
yields  under  intensive  truck  gardening  and  small  fruit  culture,  showing  how 
far  the  abandoned  areas  are  really  above  the  "  margin." 

The  pioneer  conditions  under  which  our  Northern  Atlantic  States  were  set- 
tled were  hard,  but  the  settlers'  demands  for  many  things  that  are  now  con- 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  183 

sidered  necessities  were  small.  Food  and  clothing  and  a  small  surplus  foj 
barter  were  secured  under  primitive  agricultural  methods,  with  little  capital 
and  much  labor. 

In  the  South  the  institution  of  slavery  and  the  heedless  depletion  of  soil 
fertility  due  to  farming  methods  and  to  the  soil  strain  of  the  staple  crops, 
cotton  and  tobacco,  caused  a  continuing  migration  to  virgin  or  more  fertile 
lands,  as  insistent  demand  for  fresh  slave  territory  which  finally  caused  the 
Civil  War.  The  utter  impoverishment  of  the  South  and  the  unfamiliarity  of 
the  white  man  with  manual  labor  were  supplemented  by  the  backwardness  of 
the  negro. 

Throughout  the  expanse  of  the  abandoned  and  undeveloped  portions  of  the 
South  Atlantic  States  are  examples  of  the  wonderful  production  to  be  obtained 
on  lands,  which,  though  often  initially  infertile,  possess  the  advantage  of  long 
seasons,  adequate  rainfall,  and  good  drainage. 

The  cut-over  areas  of  the  North-Central  and  Northwestern  States  often 
possess  soil  fertility,  but  the  problem  of  digging  out  stumps  and  clearing  by  the 
unaided  toil  of  the  individual,  offers  an  appalling  vista  of  unproductive  years. 
We  have  never  taken  sufficiently  into  account  the  loss  incident  to  the  time  taken 
by  manual  labor  to  clear  and  subdue  farm  lands.  It  is  simple  to  show  the 
slowly  increasing  production  that  goes  on  with  acre  by  acre  clearing  and 
with  the  soul-destroying  irritation  of  plowing  amidst  stumps. 

The  irrigation  areas  vary  in  productivity.  However  rosy  may  be  the  prospect 
of  crops  insured  against  drought  and  often  climatically  exempt  from  frost 
damage,  there  is  little  that  is  cheering  to  the  settler  without  capital.  Often- 
times lu-  1ms  invested  his  all  in  his  initial  payment.  Without  adequate  housing, 
without  horses,  he  faces  the  unbroken  sagebrush  and  the  unleveled  land.  His 
pitiful  efforts  with  hand  tools  are  interspersed  with  working  for  wages,  till 
often  broken  in  pocket  and  spirit,  he  abandons  fertile  soil  with  water  at  hand 
because  he  can  not  make  the  connection  of  natural  resources  where  capital  or 
credit  is  lacking.  Grubbing  sagebrush  with  a  mattock  is  a  criminal  waste  of 
life  when  a  tractor  will  tear  out  and  break  eight  acres  a  day.  While  many 
successes  have  been  recorded  there  is  throughout  the  West  the  remembrance 
of  countless  tragic  and  unnecessary  failures,  with  the  prospect  of  many  more, 
until  the  time  comes  that  settlement  means  application  of  labor  directly  to 
production  and  not  the  mere  placing  of  a  human  body  on  a  fenced  piece  of  land. 

It  is  trite  to  state  that  agricultural  production  calls  for  land,  labor,  and 
capital,  but  to  nfost  of  us  it  has  not  been  so  clear  that  the  necessary  ingredients 
are  needed  in  widely  divergent  ratios.  Prairie  farming  has  called  for  much 
land  and  comparatively  little  labor  or  capital.  It  has  been  subject  to  extreme 
costs  between  production  and  consumption.  These  costs  may  be  largely 
remedied,  but  there  will  always  be  required  comparatively  long  hauls  and 
expensive  freight  charges  to  reach  foreign  markets  or  the  largest  centers  of 
American  population. 

Truck  gardening  near  the  market  requires  little  land,  small  capital,  and 
immense  labor,  with  no  inherently  heavy  charge  for  selling,  but  a  considerable 
risk  on  account  of  the  perishable  nature  of  the  produce. 

Fruit  growing  calls  for  varying  amounts  of  land  and  labor,  but  for  consider- 
able capital  to  await  production  and  great  risk  from  natural  causes  and  often 
from  the  uncertainties  of  market  conditions. 

The  prairie  lands  yielding  cheaply  staple  grains  and  live  stock  are  practically 
all  taken  up. 

Future  development  must  be  found  in  reclamation  of  various  sorts.  There 
still  remain  portions  of  the  arid  public  domain  were  irrigation  may  be  promoted. 
This  involves  large  capital  investment. 

There  are  areas  that  can  be  reclaimed  from  swamps,  with  varying  costs,  which 
must  be  met  wholesale.  But  chiefly  to  be  relied  on  for  extent  are  the  aban- 
doned lands  and  the  unused  lands  of  the  East  and  the  cut-over  lands  of  the 
South  and  of  the  Northwest. 

The  problem  in  each  case  is  to  secure  and'  economically  to  apply  the  large 
capital  fund  necessary  to  make  land  immediately  productive. 

In  some  cases  water  must  be  supplied ;  in  some  cases  drainage  must  be 
obtained.  Here  we  must  clear  off  stumps  and  brush,  and  there  we  must  supply 
and  develop  soil  fertility. 

The  problems  of  settlement  involve  doing  these  things  with  machinery,  doing 
them  rapidly,  and  on  an  immense  scale. 


184  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

The  lands  of  greatest  fertility,  where  the  least  capital  and  labor  are  required 
for  production,  have  increased  tremendously  in  selling  value. 

Under  our  fee  simple  tenure  there  is  in  some  places  a  continuing  tendency 
to  aggregate  into  large  holdings  farmed  by  hired  labor  or  by  tenants.  Other- 
wise we  find  a  breaking  up  of  large  speculative  holdings,  but  everywhere  an 
increase  of  private  tenancy,  which  is  an  admitted  menace  to  our  social  and 
economic  welfare. 

Whatever  may  be  the  abstract  ethics  of  rent  or  interest  charge,  it  is  not  well 
for  people  to  live  in  idleness  on  the  product  of  others.  No  restrictions  of  leases 
in  private-tenant  contracts  can  prevent  wasteful,  careless  farming,  with  the 
natural  tendency  and  temptation  to  soil  depletion  and  heedlessness  of  upkeep 
that  go  with  temporary  and  shifting  occupation. 

The  policy  of  land  settlement  is  far  bigger  than  the  immediate  provision  for 
soldiers  and  sailors.  It  should  not  be  confined  to  war  displacement.  If  oppor- 
tunities are  to  be  offered,  there  is  justice  in  showing  first  preference  for  those 
who  have  risked  their  lives  for  the  Republic,  and  then  next  to  those  whose 
occupations  and  employment  have  been  overturned  or  destroyed  by  war 
emergency  or  its  ending. 

But  there  must  be  a  redistribution  and  a  procession  "  buck  to  the  land  " 
whether  soldiers  and  sailors  wish  to  lead  it  or  whether  others  shall  avail 
themselves  of  the  chances.  Somewhere  we  must  find  those  who  by  inclination 
and  qualification  are  willing  under  favoring  circumstances  to  undertake1  the 
task  of  increasing  our  food  supply. 

First,  let  iis  consider  the  question  of  inclination.  It  has  long  been  recognized 
that  farm  life  is  hard  and  lonesome.  Our  prairies,  largely  held  in  quarter  sec- 
tions, placed  people  half  a  mile  apart.  The  natural  requirements  of  social  life 
were  denied  them,  and  the  town  and  city  had  an  irresistible  fascination.  We 
have  but  to  consider  how  wide  a  departure  this  is  from  the  village  rural  life 
of  Europe  to  see  where  the  remedy  must  lie.  We  must  more  and  more  work 
toward  community  life,  such  as  is  now  possible  Tinder  the  intensive  farming  of 
irrigation  districts.  Land  holdings  will  normally  tend  to  become  smaller,  wilh 
equal  output,  due  to  better  methods,  and  community  life  must  be  given  a  proper 
development.  The  parcel  post,  the  telephone,  the  cheap  automobile,  are  all 
working  toward  closer  association.  Cooperative  use  of  tractors,  abandonment 
of  useless  fences  with  their  waste  patches  and  weed  beds,  and  the  use  of  the 
latest  farming  machinery  will  also  urge  this  tendency  in  days  to  come.  Scien- 
tific agriculture  and  technical  education  that  makes  it  possible  will,  when 
coupled  with  community  life,  tend  to  stabilize  farm  life  as  a  satisfactory  and 
permanent  career. 

No  settlement  policy  can  be  solvent  unless  it  carefully  discriminates  in  the 
selection  of  those  who  are  to  be  given  opportunity.  They  must  be  interested. 
able-bodied,  capable,  and  qualified.  Agriculture,  no  more  than  school  teaching, 
is  a  proper  recourse  for  tag-enders  and  failures.  Settlers  must  be  aided 
by  the  careful  selection  and  preparation  of  land,  and  by  advances  of  capital 
to  bring  such  land  into  production,  when  supplemented  by  the  settler's  labor, 
and  any  policy  not  inherently  solvent  would  be  an  intolerable  burden  and  an 
element  of  evil  to  any  country  that  tried  it.  Settlers  must  be  taught  what 
to  do  and  how  to  do  it,  not  out  of  books  of  theory,  but  from  pages  of  actual 
local  experience. 

A  careful  study  of  the  situation,  of  the  large  capital  needed,  and  the  narrow 
margin  that  should  be  charged  for  rendering  the  service  of  land  settlement, 
leads  to  the  view  that  it  should  not  be  left  to  private  initiative.  It  is 
essentially  a  public  service.  There  should  be  intimate  cooperation  between 
the  States  and  the  Nation  in  any  land-settlement  policy.  It  is  true  that  such 
settlement  might  be  carried  through,  as  in  the  past,  through  irrigation  and 
reclamation  projects  on  portions  of  the  public  domain  and  entirely  by  the 
Federal  Government,  but  these  are  necessarily  subject  to  State  taxation 
and  to  a  measure  of  State  control,  without  any  definite  cooperative1  agree- 
ment with  the  Nation. 

The  States  could  pel-form  the  service  independently  of  (he  Federal  Govern- 
ment, as  California  is  now  doing  on  a  small  scale.  But  the  problem  is  one 
of  national  importance,  to  which  the  national  credit  should  be  lent,  and  a 
greater  degree  of  uniformity  could  be  assured  through  national  supervision 
and  assistance. 

The  State,  with  its  well-defined  taxing  power,  can  best  handle  such  ques- 
tions as  road  building,  where  benefits  should  be  assessed  against  the  land 
profiting  by  improvements. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  185 

Funds  expended  in  the  States  by  the  Federal  Government  are  as  a  general 
matter  spent  mid  gone  without  possibility  of  recovery,  as  is  evidenced  in 
our  river  :md  liarbor  appropriations.  Uncle  Sam  can  pay  damages,  but  can 
not  assess  benefits. 

In  the  case  of  reclamation  projcts.  Government  expenditures  are  added  to 
the  per  acre  price  of  lands  reclaimed,  but  there  are  often  general  benefits 
outside  the  reclaimed  area  which  should  be  paid  for  by  others  than  the 
specific  settlers. 

Any  State  with  a  self-respecting  sense  of  its  responsibilities  and  a  desire 
for  orderly  progress  would  naturally  better  comprehend  its  immediate  needs 
and  conditions  and  better  meet  them  than  a  centralized  authority  in  distant 
Washington. 

Let  us  turn  for  a  moment  to  consider  the  question  of  farm  credits.  That 
question,  as  furnishing  a  productive  agency,  is  not  reached  and  hardly  even 
approached  in  the  United  States,  by  any  means,  private  or  public.  Benefit 
lias  accrued  to  farmers  and  investors  by  the  creation  of  our  land-credit 
system,  which  supplements  the  private  agencies  that  have  heretofore  lent 
funds  on  mortgages.  But  lending  money  on  mortgages  bears  the  same  relation 
to  production  in  the  agricultural  field  as  does  pawnbroking  or  collateral 
loans  by  banks  in  commercial  transactions.  The  owner  of  the  most  available 
standard  land,  worth,  perhaps,  $200  per  acre,  can  easily  borrow  from  private 
investors  up  to  $100  an  acre.  The  funds  may  be  used  to  buy  more  land,  or 
for  any  other  purpose,  productive  or  otherwise.  But  consider  the  case  of 
a  borrower  who  would  subdue  a  piece  of  brush  land,  worth  $5  an  acre,  or  one 
who  would  plant  to  orchard  land  of  small  value,  with  the  need  of  waiting 
years  for  returns  that  eventually  would  be  large.  Consider  the  case  of  one 
who,  by  years  of  cultivation  and  the  use  of  expensive  fertilizer,  would  make 
barren  sand  permanently  productive. 

There  are  innumerable  cases  where  advance  amounting  to  10  times  the  value 
of  the  raw  land  involved  would  be  paid  out  of  but  few  intensive  and  valuable 
crops. 

It  is  as  necessary  to  furnish  a  credit  system  to  meet  such  requirements  as 
it  is  that  banks  should  furnish  credit  for  mercantile  and  manufacturing 
operations. 

Mortgage  loans  at  reasonable  rates  are  a  benefit,  but  in  a  sense  offer  an 
example  of  "To  him  that  hath  shall  be  given,"  and  the  tenant  is  hopelessly 
barred. 

The  machinery  that  will  safeguard  such  productive  credit  has  been  created 
in  other  countries,  and  differs  in  no  essential  particular  from  the  security 
obtained  for  mercantile  advances.  It  is  a  question  of  organization  of  local 
units  under  a  general  system,  so  that  eventually  a  comparatively  small 
number  of  neighbors  guarantee  and  watch  each  other,  with  the  penalty  of 
loss  of  future  credit  for  delinquency. 

Under  an  adequate  plan  of  settlement  these  credit  needs  would  be  recognized 
at  the  outset.  It  is  necessary  to  consider  them  to  make  the  question  of 
the  needed  element  of  capital  clear. 

As  we  enter  the  field  of  concrete  illustration  I  urge  as  one  of  the  most 
important  factors  in  any  system  of  settlement  the  question  of  the  form  of 
tenure  upon  which  settlement  should  be  based.  We  take  for  granted  the 
evils  of  tenancy.  We  also  take  for  granted  the  wrong  that  arises  from  with- 
holding land  from  production,  also  unearned  profits  derived  through  land 
speculation.  We  also  recognize  dearly  that  society  should  demand  not  only 
full  use  of  land,  but  undiminished  and  even  increased  productivity.  We 
recognize  that  Government  should  prevent  destruction  as  found  *in  the 
millions  of  acres  hopelessly  eroded,  most  notably  in  some  of  the  Southern 
States,  and  deliberately  destroyed  by  gold  dredging,  as  practiced  in  some  of 
the  most  fertile  and  productive  areas  of  California. 

In  accordance  with  the  free  and  easy  verbiage  of  royal  tradition,  've  bestow 
land  in  fee  simple,  to  "  Richard  Hoe  and  to  his  heirs  and  assigns  forever." 
This  is  indeed  a  full  grant  for  a  considerable  period,  if  we  take  note  of  the 
formula.  We  next  inform  Richard  that  we  propose  to  levy  whatever  taxes  we 
see  tit  upon  his  property.  We  then  inform  him  that  as  far  as  his  heirs  are  con- 
cerned, they  can.  at  his  death,  dispose  of  it  at  forced  sale,  and  pay  a  part  of  the 
resultant  proceeds  to  the  State  and  another  to  the  Nation.  Some  States  compel 
him  to  cultivate  and  to  eliminate  weeds;  others  tell  him  how  he  shall  cur  his 
wood  lot.  Poor  Richard  is  everywhere  met  with  a  denial  of  the  high-sounding 
words  of  his  title  deed. 


186  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

The  limitations  are  neither  coherent,  uniform,  or  rational  nor  do  they  tour], 
the  evils  of  tenancy  or  speculation. 

Why  should  we  not  in  our  future  planning  avoid  this  process  of  givintr  :iml 
subsequently  taking  awsiy,  hy  providing  for  ix-rmanent  tenure  under  such  con- 
ditions that  make  unnecessary  this  subsequent  remedial  control.  There  is  one 
way  in  which  it  can  be  done,  a  way  recognized  in  other  countries,  most  notably 
in  the  Australian  commonwealth  and  in  New  Zealand,  and  thai  is  i,v  triving  a 
limited  title  at  the  be.irinnin.tr,  subject  to  resumption  by  the  State  on  violation 
of  specific  regulations. 

Now  let  us  see  how  our  plan  might  work  out.  Let  us  sny,  that  there  can  ho 
found  in  the  State  of  New  Jersey  a  tract  of  10,000  acres  now  lying  waste,  which. 
by  the  application  of  adequate  capital,  can  in  two  or  three  years  be  made  pro- 
ductive for  qualified  and  selected  settlers.  Let  the  State  of  New  .lers  >\  buy 
that  land  at  the  lowest  possible  price.  Thereafter  the  State  should  imit •.•  the 
Federal  Government  to  look  it  over,  and  see  whether  it  is  of  such  a  nature  that 
the  Nation  will  cooperate  in  its  settlement.  Once  the  Federal  Government  has 
accepted  the  project,  then  men  and  machinery  should  be  put  at  work-  to  clear. 
level,  and  to  apply  such  elements  to  the  soil  as  are  needed  for  production. 
There  would  be  no  long  drawn  out  misery  of  grubbing  and  clearing  by  band. 
but  less  eventual  cost  per  acre,  and  less  time  consumed  in  the  process.  The  land 
being  cleared  and  prepared,  the  Federal  Government  should  provide  funds  for 
necessary  buildings,  with  domicile  either  on  the  property  itself  or  in  a  central 
village.  The  Federal  Government  should  furthermore  advance  through  co- 
operative local  credit  centers  sufficient  funds  for  needed  ]>orsona]  property  in 
farm  implements  and  live  stock.  Before  the  settler  goes  on,  it  should  be  in 
such  condition  as  to  produce  crops  in  the  next  growing  season. 

The  settler,  carefully  selected  and  required  to  make  at  least  a  small  payment 
for  his  holding,  should  thereafter  be  subject  to  pay  to  the  Stale1  for  a  set  period 
of  not  less  than  20  years  a  fixed  sum.  as  interest  on  the  original  purchase 
price — this  to  the  State  in  lieu  of  land  tax.  That  such  interest  payment  might 
cover  insurance  for  delinquencies  and  expenses,  the  rate  should  probably  be  0 
per  cent.  The  settler  would  also  be  liable  to  the  Government  for  amortization 
payments  on  personal  property  in  not  more  than  10  annual  installments,  to- 
gether with  interest  at  4  or  5  per  cent.  He  should  furthermore  be  liable  to  the 
Government  for  amortization  payments  on  the  cost  of  permanent  improvements 
and  clearing  and  putting  the  land  in  condition,  which  payments  might  run  over 
a  period  of  30  to  40  years,  at  4  to  5  per  cent. 

Permanency  of  tenure  could  be  assured,  subject  to  proper  cultivation,  although 
the  fee  simple  title  would  not  pass  out  of  the  State.  The  right  of  inheritance 
would  be  respected,  subjecting  the  successor  to  the  same  as  the  devisee.  A  man 
could  give  his  property,  to  anyone  satisfactory  to  a  local  board  composed  of 
State  and  Federal  representatives,  but  no  one  could  secure  this  limited  title 
without  assurance  that  the  individual  who  took  it  proposed  to  work  the  land 
iinder  the  restrictions  set  forth.  Every  safeguard  should  be  placed  around  his 
tenure,  as  against  the  accidents  of  life,  so  that  the  occupant  would  feel  secure, 
even  through  crop  failure  or  other  destructive  hardship.  If  the  settler  desired 
for  any  cause  to  move  from  his  land,  he  should  be  permitted  to  sell  his  con- 
tributions to  the  property  to  a  person  satisfactory  to  the  board.  In  addition, 
this  board  should  stand  ready  to  repurchase  the  property  in  the  event  of  no 
purchaser  being  immediately  available,  paying  him  all  that  he  had  contributed 
by  amortization  and  by  his  own  work.  He  should  be  paid  the  then  value  of 
improvements  added  by  him.  and  the  then  value  of  improvements  supplied  by 
the  Government,  less  the  unpaid  debt  against  them.  He  should  be  credited  with 
added  soil  fertility  and  value  of  orchard  at  the  time  of  removal.  His  allotment 
could  then  be  again  turned  over  at  the  sum  ascertained  to  some  one  willing  to 
carry  out  the  conditions  of  his  contract. 

Here  is  a  plan  that  eliminates  a  large  part  of  the  element  of  pioneer  hard- 
ship and  risk — a  plan  that  makes  land  speculation  impossible,  and  one  that 
destroys  private  tenancy.  It  can  be  developed  along  lines  that  make  rural  life 
more  attractive,  and  if  carefully  administered,  it  is  above  all  a  solvent  plan 
that,  while  paying  itself  off  out  of  product,  is  a  permanent  enrichment  of  the 
State  and  the  country. 

The  speculation  privilege,  with  the  unconscionable  profit  derived  from  the 
needs  and  the  breeding  capacity  of  other  people,  is  eliminated,  but  there  is 
also  eliminated  at  the  other  end  the  struggle  and  misery  accompanied  by  tre- 
mendous percet.iage  of  failure,  in  cases  where  an  individual  tries  to  dig  out  a 
livelihood,  under  conditions  unnecessary  and  even  misunderstood,  and  wher* 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  187 

he  usually  lacks  the  capital  needed  to  make  his  effort  count  at  the  critical  time 
Avhich  is  at  the  beginning. 

As  a  final  general  idea,  I  wish  to  state  that  in  my  opinion  the  greatest  need 
.and  the  greatest  possibility  for  such  a  settlement  is  near  the  Atlantic  coast, 
where  population  is  worst  distributed,  where  millions  of  acres  of  available 
land  is  lying  waste,  and  where  the  demands  of  a  hungry  market  are  close  at 
hand.  The  difference  between  corn  and  wheat  values  between  Omaha  and  New 
York  are  upward  of  25  cents  a  bushel.  It  is  an  unmitigated  absurdity,  that 
with  the  eastern  States  preeminently  qualified  to  raise  the  best  of  apples,  we 
should  be  forced  to  secure  our  supplies  by  freight  from  distant  <  >regon.  Almost 
any  land  will  raise  potatoes,  which  have  been  selling  at  prices  unconscionably 
high. 

The  needed  application  of  credit  and  labor  can  best  be  made  by  the  cooper- 
ative effort  of  the  States  and  Nation.  Again,  let  me  say  that  nothing  excepting 
the  retention  of  title  by  the  State  or  the  Nation  can  fend  against  the  reaccuniu- 
lation  of  developed  areas  into  large  holdings,  with  the  recurrence  of  the  evils 
of  speculation  and  tenancy. 

We  are,  after  all,  but  tenants  of  the  world  and  oi  the  State.  We  may  be 
deprived  of  life  and  liberty  at  ihe  will  oil  the  Government  of  which  we  are  a 
part.  Are  we  wronged  if  in  future  agricultural  settlement,  where  much  of  the 
element  of  risk  is  eliminated,  and  where  immediate  means  of  livelihood  are  sup- 
plied— if  with  such  opportunity  conferred — we  are  denied  the  privilege  of  profit- 
ing by  the  effort  of  others,  and  prevented  from  proiiiecring  out  of  the  common 
need  for  land? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Chairman,  a  distinguished  gentleman  from  Texas 
is  here,  and  I  think  we  have  got  time  to  hear  him  this  morning — 
Mr.  Garner. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  be  glad  to  hear  him. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  JOHN  N.  GARNER,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN 
CONGRESS  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  TEXAS. 

Mr.  GARNER.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  there  are  any  gentlemen  here  from 
a  distance  who  want  to  be  heard,  of  course  I  do  not  care  to  take  their 
time.  The  Texas  delegation  took  seriously  your  suggestion  that  each 
delegation  send  some  one  down  here  to  express  their  views,  and  that  is 
why  I  am  here. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  be  pleased  to  hear  you. 

Mr.  GARNER.  I  came  around  yesterday  morning,  and  I  saw  some 
gentlemen  from  the  West,  and  when  there  are  gentlemen  from  out 
of  town  here  who  want  to  be  heard,  I  think  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
Member  of  the  House,  that  is  here  all  the  time,  to  stand  aside  until 
they  are  through. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  the  Texas  delega- 
tion had  a  conference  at  which  all,  I  believe,  except  one,  possibly, 
were  there — he  could  not  be  there — and  they  asked  me  to  come  over 
and  make  suggestions  as  to  the  views  of  the  Texas  delegation  as  to 
giving  assistance  or  relief,  or  whatever  you  may  term  it,  to  sol- 
diers. If  the  purpose  of  this  bill  is  to  give  relief  to  the  soldiers,  we 
don't  believe  that  it  will  give  the  relief  that  has  been  suggested  by 
the  Interior  Department  or  by  those  proponents  of  the  bill ;  and  we 
want  to  make — I,  rather,  want  to  make — a  suggestion  with  reference 
to  arranging  so  they  can  purchase  homes.  If  it  is  a  conservation 
proposition,  of  course  I  don't  desire  to  be  heard  at  this  time,  but  if 
it  is  purely  for  the  purpose  of  taking  care  of  the  soldiers — and  if  I 
understand  it,  it  is  in  his  name  that  this  legislation  is  being  promul- 
gated— we  desire  to  suggest  what  we  think  is  a  better  remedy  for 
the  soldier. 


188  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

It  was  admitted  by,  I  think,  all  of  the  proponents  of  this  measure- 
that  it  will  take  from  18  months  to  3  years  in  order  to  prepare 
the  soldier's  home  in  which  he  and  his  family  might  live.  We  \vant 
to  suggest  that  you  pass  a  bill  here  that  will  give  him  an  opportunity 
to  buy  him  a  home  at  once  and  to  buy  it  where  he  pleases.  If  you  are 
going  to  giv.e  relief  to  the  soldier,  you  ought  not  to  undertake  to 
tell  him  that  he  must  move  from  the  community  from  whence  he 
enlisted  in  the  Army,  or  was  drafted  into  the  Army,  to  some  other 
domicile  in  order  to  get  a  home,  if  you  really  mean  what  you  say. 
Of  course,  if  you  have  got  a  conservation  proposition,  or  you  have 
got  an  irrigation  proposition,  or  you  have  got  stump  land,  cut-over 
land  that  ycfu  want  to  sell  to  the  Government,  or  if  you  have  got 
some  arid,  dry  land  that  can't  be  used — like  I  have  in  my  country — 
that  you  want  to  unload  on  the  Government,  that  is  a  different  propo- 
sition; but  if  you  really  mean  what  you  say,  that  you  desire  to  sell 
the  soldier  a  home  upon  which  he  and  his  family  can  make  a  living, 
you  ought  to  sell  it  to  him  at  once  and  in  the  community  where  he 
desires  to  live;  and  I  make  this  suggestion  to  the  committee:  That  we 
loan,  out  of  the  Treasury,  to  the  soldiers  of  the  United  States  who 
served  in  the  recent  war  who  desire  to  purchase  a  farm,  not  exceed- 
ing $5,000  for  the  purpose  of  purchasing  himself  a  homo  in  any  por- 
tion of  the  United  States  that  he  desires.  If  it  is  adjoining  his 
father's  or  mother's  home,  so  much  the  better,  if  he  can  find  that 
place.  If  it  is  improved  land,  so  much  the  better ;  if  it  is  unimproved 
land  and  if  he  desires  to  improve  it,  that  is  his  business;  but  give  him 
an  opportunity  to  get  himself  a  home  and  to  get  it  where  he  wants  it. 

I  undertake  to  say  that — speaking  as  much,  I  believe,  for  the 
soldier  as  any  gentleman  of  the  committee  or  the  proponents  of  this 
bill  have  a  right  to  do,  I  will  say  that  I  can  take  any  200  or  200,000 
soldiers  and  stand  them  before  me  and  say :  "  Wre  want  to  do  some- 
thing for  you.  You  have  saved  the  flag;  you  have  saved  liberty; 
you  won  this  war  and  we  want  to  arrange  it  so  you  can  have  a  coun- 
try home,  a  farm  to  live  on.  How  do  you  want  us  to  do  it  ?  "  And 
the  answer  would  be :  "  Well,  let  us  have  the  money  and  go  and  buy 
it  Avhere  we  want  it."  I  think  that  would  appeal  to  more  men  than 
this  proposition  will.  So,  I  refer  again  back  to  the  proposition,  that 
if  it  is  your  desire— if  it  is  your  real  purpose  to  help  the  soldier, 
and  not  a  conservation  purpose,  some  scheme  that  somebody  has  fixed 
up  to  conserve  arid  lands  or  cut-over  lands,  or  swamp  lands — but  if 
your  real  purpose  is  to  help  the  soldier,  let  us  do  it  and  do  it  more 
economically  and  in  a  better,  businesslike  way  than  this  is,  where 
the  soldier  will  get  a  greater  worth  for  his  money  that  he  pays  for 
and  the  Government  will  stand  a  less  loss. 

Now,  my  honest  judgment  about  this  bill  is  that  we  usually  get 
about  60  to  70  per  cent  worth  of  our  money,  of  the  appropriations 
made  by  Congress.  I  don't  believe  that  you  will  get  10  per  cent 
out  of  this  bill.  I  know  you  won't  applying  it  in  my  own  district, 
my  own  country.  You  have  in  the  fifteenth  district  options.  I  think, 
on  more  land  than  all  the  rest  of  Texas  put  together.  By  this  prop- 
osition you  have — 

Mr.  RAKER  (interposing).  What  do  you  mean  by  that?  I  do  not 
quite  get  your  meaning. 

Mr.  GARNER.  They  have  gone  down  there  and  gotten  a  groat  many 
people — hunted  them  up  and  said :  "  We  will  take  your  land.  What 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  189 

will  you  take  for  it?  "  "  Well,  we  will  take  $20  an  acre,"  or  ".$10  an 
acre."  They  say,  "  All  right,"  and  make  a  memorandum  of  that  and 
take  it  back,  and  they  are  now  surveying  in  my  district  the  greatest 
irrigation  project  in  the  world.  And  the  department  should  be 
commended  for  spending  that  money.  It  is  probably  the  best  spent 
money  out  of  the  $200,000.  The  people  put  up  $15,000  and  the  In- 
terior Department  put  up  $15,000,  $30,000  for  the  survey.  It  is  in 
the  Rio  Grande  Valley,  where  they  can  irrigate  by  gravity  more  than 
a  million  acres  of  land,  the  richest  land  in  the  world,  and  it  is  all 
with  this  particular  scheme  in  view. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Is  that  project  in  your  district? 

Mr.  GARNER.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  that  to  buy  out  the  farmer  or  let  him  have  part  of 
his  land? 

Mr.  GARNER.  Now,  Mr.  Raker,  you  will  have  to  work  that  out  your- 
self. I  think,  as  far  as  my  territory  is  concerned,  that  the  people 
down  there,  so  far  as  I  know,  are  overwhelmingly  in  favor  of  the 
proposition.  The  Texas  Legislature  passed  a  resolution,  the  senate 
and  house  almost  unanimously  favoring  the  Lane  proposition.  Of 
course  they  had  never  read  the  Lane  proposition;  they  didn't  know 
what  it  was,  but  they  were  getting  Government  funds  spent  in 
Texas  to  produce  farms  for  somebody  to  live  on,  and  they  wanted 
that.  That  is  the  way  the  Texas  Legislature  looks  at  it.  They  sent 
a  delegation  here,  the  governor  did,  three  State  senators,  and  a 
representative  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  in  order  to  tell  the  18 
members  of  the  Texas  delegation  how  they  should  vote  on  this  pro- 
posed Lane  bill  at  the  last  session.  I  have  read  this  bill  and  there 
isn't  a  material  difference  between  this  proposition  and  theirs — some 
difference  in  detail. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Have  you  estimated,  Mr.  Garner,  how  much  it  would 
take  to  furnish  $5,000  to  every  soldier  that  would  like  to  have  it  to 
buy  a  farm? 

Mr.  GARNER.  I  have  figured  it  out  enough  to  know  that  it  will  cost 
less  than  the  proposition  that  you  have  got  now  to  furnish  the  same 
number  of  soldiers  with  homes.  I  am  going  to  take  care  of  as  many 
soldiers  as  you  do.  Under  your  proposition,  you  propose  to  take  care 
of  a  certain  number  of  soldiers,  and  you  take  that  number  and  mul- 
tiply it  by  5,000 — I  say  not  exceeding  $5,000 — some  may  want  $2,000, 
some  $2,500,  or  $3,000 — but  I  will  take  care  of  more  soldiers  under  my 
plan  than  you  will  under  your  bill  and  do  it  at  less  expense,  and  I 
Avill  have  land,  gentlemen,  that  the  soldier  can  take  and  utilize,  he 
and  his  family,  in  the  country  that  he  wants  to  live  in.  For  in- 
stance, there  are  a  little  over  8,000  troops  from  my  district  in  this 
war.  You  say  you  are  going  to  get  25  per  cent  of  those  troops.  All 
ri^ht.  that  is  2,000.  What  are  you  going  to  do  with  them?  You  are 
going  to  take  them  two  or  three  hundred  miles  out  of  my  district  and 
put  them  in  some  other  district,  and  you  are  going  to  confine  that 
particular  territory  to  occupancy  by  those  troops  alone,  not  allow 
anybody  else  to  live  there. 

Mr.  SMITH.  How  many  troops  from  Texas,  8,000? 

Mr.  GARNER.  No;  from  my  district.  I  was  just  illustrating  my 
district.  You  are  going  to  put  it  on  one  of  these  projects  in  Texas. 
You  are  going  to  put  it  in  Sam  Rayburn's  district,  or  on  the  cut-over 


190  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

lands  in  east  Texas,  or  up  in  the  prairie  country.  What  are  you  go- 
ing to  do,  take  2,000  soldiers  out  of  my  district  and  put  them  in  one 
particular  place  where  nobody  else  can  live  except  a  soldier?  I  don't 
believe  it  is  feasible. 

Mr.  MAYS.  You  plan  would  not  increase  the  total  number  of 
farmers  or  the  number  of  homes? 

Mr.  GARNER.  Yes,  sir;  I  am  just  simply  trying  to  eliminate  the 
conservation  feature.  You  can  throw  around  this  scheme  all  the 
safeguards  you  want  to — I  have  some  in  mind  myself.  I  would  pro- 
vide that  in  case  he  sold  this  land,  at  the  option  of  the  Government, 
the  debt  should  become  due  and  payable.  I  would  also  provide  that 
in  purchasing  this  land  an  agent  of  the  Farm  Loan  Bank — or  if  you 
want  to  make  a  new  independent  bureau,  I  will  do  that,  but  I 'am 
somewhat  opposed  to  creating  additional  bureaus;  I  think  the  Farm 
Loan  Bank  can  do  it,  and  go  with  him  and  see  that  he  neither  cheated 
the  Government  nor  the  individual  cheated  him.  In  other  words,  I 
would  not  permit  a  man  to  buy  for  $5,000,  a  piece  of  land  worth 
$1,000,  and  to  divide  $4,000  with  somebody  el.-^e  and  immediately 
abandon  it.  So,  therefore,  I  would  have  a  Government  agent  there 
to  see  that  the  land  was  reasonably  worth  the  amount  of  money  that 
he  paid  for  it. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Under  your  plan,  there  would  not  be  any  more  land 
under  cultivation  than  there  is  now. 

Mr.  GARNER.  Oh,  now  you  are  coming  back  to  just  exactly  what  I 
stated.  You  are  not  going  to  help  the  soldier ;  you  are  going  to  force 
more  land  into  cultivation.  That  is  not  my  purpose  at  all.  My  pur- 
pose— what  I  am  trying  to  get  now  is  to  draw  your  attention  and  to 
confine  you  to  one  thing:  You  want  to  help  the  soldier;  you  don't 
want  to  put  any  more  land  in  cultivation.  If  you  want  to  enact 
legislation  for  conservation,  to  force  more  land  into  cultivation,  I 
v*  ill  be  glad  to  consider  that  question,  but  you  say  that  you  want  to 
help  the  soldier.  That  is  what  you  state.  I  want  to  help  the  soldier, 
and  I  challenge  you  to  produce  the  method  better  than  I  suggest  and 
that  will  appeal  more  to  the  soldiers  in  this  country  than  the  one  I 
suggest. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Mr.  Garner,  how  about  the  soldier  that  wants  to  go 
onto  a  new  project  where  it  is  reclaimed  by  the  Government  or  being 
irrigated  by  the  Government? 

Mr.  GARNER.  I  say,  "  Go  right  along,  Mr.  Soldier.  Go  out  there." 
Let  him  have  $2,000,  or  $3,000,  or  $4,000,  or  $5,000,  and  buy  a  place 
there. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  But  the  Government  has  got  to  spend  a  lot  of 
money  putting  it  in  shape  and  reclaming  it. 

Mr.  GARNER.  You  mean  to  say  that  there  isn't  enough  land  in  cul- 
tivation in  this  country  now  to  supply  the  needs  for  those  men,  a 
comfortable  place  to  live  in? 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  He  might  prefer  that  kind  of  a  place. 

Mr.  GARNER.  There  are  lots  of  irrigation  systems  in  the  West  now. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  But  most  of  them  are  pretty  well  taken  up. 

Mr.  GARNER.  Pretty  well  taken  up?  My  dear  sir,  if  you  will  ob- 
serve, for  instance,  the  Roosevelt  Dam  proposition — you  know  somet- 
thing  about  that? 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  A  little;  not  much. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  191 

Mr.  GARNER.  How  many  more  families  could  settle  there? 

Mr.  BARBOTJR.  A  good  many. 

Mr.  GARNER.  I  should  say  so. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  That  is  only  one  proposition. 

Mr.  GARNER.  Now,  I  think  you  will  settle  more  there  than  you  will 
have  soldiers  apply  for  irrigated  projects. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Now,  let  me  ask  this  question — I  am  asking  this  for 
information :  Are  you  opposed  to  developing  new  farming  lands  in 
the  country? 

Mr.  GARNER.  Indeed,  not.  I  want  to  encourage  it  all  I  can,  but  I 
don't  want  you  to  do  a  thing  for  the  soldier  that  is  impracticable  and 
then  tell  him  it  is  all  done  for  his  sake.  You  tell  him :  "  Mr.  Soldier, 
we  are  going  to  take  advantage  of  the  conditions  of  the  country  and 
the  fact  that  we  want  to  help  you,  in  order  to  put  through  a  scheme 
that  we  have  had  in  our  brains  all  these  years."  I  say  that  is  not  the 
fair  thing  to  the  soldier,  because  the  soldier  is  going  to  say  to  me.: 
"  I  don't  want  to  leave  here,  Garner.  I  wish  you  would  try  and  ar- 
range it  to  get  me  down  here  with  my  father  and  mother,  where  I 
have  always  lived.  They  don't  want  me  to  leave."  He  comes  back 
to  Uvalde,  my  home  town,  where  he  has  got  a  wife  and  one  child. 

I  go  back  down  there  and  say:  "Well,  we  appropriated  $500,- 
000,000,  Bill,  for  you  to  make  a  home  for  you  and  your  wife  and  baby 
to  go  to."  "Well,  how  did  you  do  it,  Mr.  Garner?"  "  Well,  we  ap- 
propriated this  $500,000,000  and  we  have  gone  over  here  in  East 
Texas,  where  there  is  a  lot  of  cut-over  land,  and  we  are  going  to  send 
you  over  there  with  your  wife  and  child,  and  give  you  $100  a  month 
while  you  dig  up  the  stumps  and  build  the  house  and  the  dairy  and 
the  other  things,  and  after  you  get  it  all  built,  we  are  going  to  sell  it 
to  you  at  what  it  cost  us  to  produce  it  through  your  labor."  He  is 
going  to  turn  to  me  and  say,  "  Well,  I  won't  have  it.  I  don't  want 
any  business  of  that  kind."~ 

Mr.  SMITH.  He  is  being  paid  for  his  labor. 

Mr.  GARNER.  Through  the  value  of  his  labor. 

Mr.  SMITH.  But  he  is  being  paid  for  it. 

Mr.  GARNER.  I  agree  with  you.  I  said  $100  a  month.  Then  the 
Government  is  going  to  sell  him  that  land  at  what  it  cost  the  Govern- 
ment, through  the  value  of  his  labor,  to  produce  it.  Now  let  me  tell 
you  what  would  happen  in  my  own  country — I  don't  know  what  it 
would  be  in  yours,  but  you  take  the  100,000' acres  that  they  have  got 
options  on — I  say  "options,"  I  haven't  seen  them,  but  anyhow,  they 
got  men  to  price  land  to  them — and  you  can  take  a  soldier  down  there 
at  $100  a  month  and  let  him  grub  that  land  and  put  a  house  on  it  and 
improvements,  and  when  you  get  through,  he  can  go  over  here  10 
miles  away,  the  same  kind  of  land,  the  same  improvements  and  every- 
thing, and  he  can  buy  it  for  20  cents  on  the  dollar  of  what  he  will  pay 
for  that  that  he  has  worked  on  and  developed.  Now  do  you  think  the 
soldier  wants  to  buy  that  kind  of  land? 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  They  are  doing  it  in  other  places,  Mr.  Garner. 

Mr.  GARNER.  How  do  you  mean? 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  The  settlement  propositions.  We  had  a  gentlemau 
before  us  yesterday,  who  was  connected  with  the  Chicago.  Milwau- 
kee &  St.  Paul  Railroad,  and  he  told  us  about  the  big  tracts  that 
they  are  developing  up  there,  and  he  said  he  could  put  thousands — I 

i:«319— 19 13 


192  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

have  forgotten  the  exact  number  of  thousands — on  there  in  a  year  if 
they  had  the  land  available.  And,  if  I  remember  his  testimony  cor- 
rectly, he  advises  strongly  against  the  very  proposition  which  you 
now  make,  which,  ho  said,  in  his  opinion,  could  not  be  worked  out 
successfully.  Now,  I  don't  know.  I  am  not  enough  of  a  land  ex- 
pert or  colonization  expert  to  know  whether  it  would  work  sucess- 
fully  or  not. 

Mr.  GARNER.  I  am  going  to  ask  you  if  you  were  a  soldier  in  this 
Army  and  you  came  back  home,  you  are  between  20  and  30  years 
of  age,  a  single  man  or  a  married  man — you  have  come  back  to  your 
home — and  you  really  want  a  farm  to  live  on,  wouldn't  you  rather 
that  the  Government  would  permit  you  to  buy  a  farm  where  you 
wanted  it  rather  than  to  to  say :  "  We  are  going  to  set  you  off  in 
a  plate  that  will  be  exclusively  for  soldiers:  nobody  can  live  there 
but  soldiers." 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Now,  we  have  not  finally  decided  that,  about 
whether  anybody  shall  live  there  but  soldiers  or  not.  I  don't  know 
what  I  would  do  now  if  I  was  a  soldier,  21  or  25  years  of  age,  but 
I  will  say  this,  that  I  did  pull  out  from  my  home  and  preferred  to 
go  to  another  State  when  I  was  25  years  of  age — not  onto  a  farm. 
however.  Some  of  them  want  to  get  away  from  their  homes. 

Mr.  GARNER.  The  soldiers  will  still  have  the  right,  under  my 
suggestion,  to  go  from  one  State  to  another.  We  say  to  John :  "  Here, 
you  come  back  to  Kentucky."  And  he  replies,  "I  don't  eaiv  to  re- 
main in  Kentucky.  I  have  had  a  little  of  life— of  seeing  the  world. 
I  want  to  move  to  Texas."  All  right,  come  on  down,  we  will  loan 
you  money  to  buy  a  home  down  there.  He  hasn't  got  a  thing  now. 
He  is  going  to  leave  father  and  mother  and  the  old  place  and  is 
going  away — going  to  Texas.  All  right  come  down  and  buy  a  farm. 
We  will  loan  yon  $5.000,  at  5  per  cent  interest  on  40  years'  time.  Go 
down  into  Texas  and  buy  yourself  a  farm  and  get  started.  Can 
you  think  of  a  better  scheme  than  that  toward  helping  the  soldier 
at  the  present  time  ( 

Mr.  SMITH.  Then,  you  are  in  favor  of  supplementing  this  legis- 
lation with  the  plan  of  loaning  to  individual  soldiers  who  prefer 
to  buy  in  some  settled  community? 

Mr.  GARNER.  I  will  tell  you  what  I  prefer.  I  have  been  in  public 
life  ever  since  I  was  21  years  old;  I  don't  know  whether  I  have  made 
a  success  of  it  or  not;  but,  anyhow,  I  have1  been  hanging  on  to  the 
public  tit.  as  they  say  in  Texas,  ever  since  I  came  of  age,  and  I  don't 
know  whether  I  have  made  a  success  of  it,  but  I  have  made  it  a 
rule  all  my  life  never  to  deceive  anybody,  and  never  to  deceive  my.-elf. 
and  I  undertake  to  say  that  there  is  not  a  man  living  that  takes  that 
bill  and  works  it  out  practically  and  can  conclude  that  it  is  for  the 
purpose  of  helping  the  soldier.  The  same  amount  of  money  with 
the  opportunity  to  get  himself  a  farm  where  he  wants  to,  to  locat •• 
where  he  wants  to,  will  give  him  some  relief. 

Now.  I  will  join  you  in  this:  I  am  willing  to  experiment  with  yon. 
I  believe  that  the  waste  places  in  this  country  ought  to  be  reclaimed 
just  as  intensely  as  you  do:  but  I  think  it  ought  to  be  done  by  experi- 
mental stages.  I  am  not  willing  to  iro  and  involve  this  conntrv  in 
from  $2,000,000,000  to  $10,000,(K)().ui)i).  as  the  Secretary  of  the  Inf- 
rior  says,  on  an  experiment.  I  would  rather  experini"rt  with  their 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  193 

scheme  awhile.  I  would  rather  try  the  conservation,  that  you  speak 
of,  with  $100,000,000  first.  That^is  a  good  big  sum  to  experiment 
with.  Take  $100,000,000  for  the  purpose  of  experimenting  and  let 
anybody  go  out  there  that  wants  to:  then  you  will  be  able  to  try 
it:  out  fairly  and  ses  whether  that  will  do  the  work  that  you  say  it 
will  with  reference  to  reclaiming  arid  lands  and  cut-over  lands 
and  swamp  lands.  If  it  does,  I  will  go  with  you  to  the  fullest  extent. 

Mr.  SMITH.  There  is  no  experiment  with  the  arid  lands  of  the 
West,  Mr.  Garner. 

Mr.  GARNER.  I  know  they  are  not  experimenting  in  my  country. 
For  instance,  I  live  in  a  country  where  the  land  was  selling  when  I 
came  to  Congress  at  $1  an  acre  that  you  can't  buy  for  $300  an  acre 
now.  So  I  know  as  much  about  that  property  as  any  man  can  know 
from  observation  without  having  cultivated  the  soil  myself.  My 
district  has  the  largest  irrigation  system  of  any  district  in  the 
United  States.  You  will  be  surprised  when  I  tell  you  that  my  dis- 
trict produces  more  sugar  than  any  other  district  in  the  United 
States.  It  did  not  produce  a  pound  10  }7ears  ago.  And  it  is  that  way 
with  nearly  everything  else.  The  fifteenth  district,  that  I  represent, 
•  raises  more  onions  than  any  State  in  the  Union.  So  I  know  some- 
thing about  it,  but  I  don't  want  to  deceive  the  soldier;  that  is  all 
there  is  about  it.  I  will  join  you  in  this  conservation,  reclamation 
and  all  that,  but  let  us  not  deceive  the  soldier. 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  is  safe  to  say,  then,  Mr.  Garner,  that  not  only  your 
constituents  but  yourself  in  the  last  20  years,  have  made  a  success 
by  reason  of  your  being  in  public  life  and  treating  the  public  fairly. 

Mr.  GARNER.  Well,  that  is  a  joke  on  me.     [Laughter.] 

Mr.  XICHOLS.  I  will  agree  with  Mr.  Garner  that  the  title  of  this 
bill  is  misleading.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  as  to  the  cost  of  your 
proposition,  following  up  Mr.  Smith's  suggestion.  The  Secretary 
of  the  Interior.  Secretary  Lane,  made  the  statement  that  16  per  cent, 
about,  of  the  soldiers  had  expressed  the  desire  to  take  this  proposi- 
tion up  as  it  is  indicated  in  this  bill.  Now,  then,  under  your  sug- 
gestion, wouldn't  the  percentage  of  soldiers  wrho  would  care  to  ask 
Uncle  Sam  for  a  $5,000  loan  to  buy  a  home  any  place  they  pleased, 
in  a  town  or  in  a  city,  wouldn't  the  percentage  "be  greatly  increased, 
of  those  soldiers  who  would  like  to  take  advantage  of  that? 

Mr.  GARNER.  If  3-011  will  admit  that  premise,  then  I  will  admit 
the  conclusion  too,  that  my  scheme  is  the  best  and  the  most  attrac- 
tive. If  you  come  here  to  help  the  soldier;  you  didn't  come  here  to 
make  conservations ;  you  didn't  come  here  to  buy  land ;  you  come  here 
to  help  the  soldier.  Don't  get  away  from  that  proposition,  so  if  you 
admit  that  my  scheme  will  attract  more  soldiers  for  the  purpose  of 
buying  farms  than  your  method  will,  then  my  scheme  is  the  best 
for  the  soldier. 

Mr.  XICHOLS.  I  agree  with  you,  Mr.  Garner,  but  it  is  going  to  cost 
a  great  deal  more  money. 

Mr.  GARNER.  We  are  not  considering  cost  here;  we  are  considering 
the  soldier.  We  are  considering  his  welfare;  we  want  to  do  some- 
thing for  him. 

Now.  the  President  has  recommended  this  in  two  messages,  the 
Democratic  President,  He  recommended  this  in  his  annual  message 
of  December  and  again  in  this  session.  The  majority  party  has  ap- 


194  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

peared  at  this  table  and  they  have  all  said :  "  In  the  name  of  the 
soldier,  we  ask  this."  Now,  in  the  name  of  the  soldier,  I  ask  you  to 
do  something  really  for  his  interest  and  not  for  the  purpose  of  some 
other  scheme,  be  it  political  or  conservation  or  otherwise. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Why  not  just  give  him  $5,000  and  let  him  do  what  he 
pleases  with  it? 

Mr.  GARNER.  I  don't  think  that  is  good  public  policy.  I  don't 
think  the  soldier  asks  for  that. 

M,r.  MAYS.  Wouldn't  there  be  a  larger  percentage  that  would  ask 
for  that? 

Mr.  GARNER.  There  probably  would.  But  if  you  want  to  fool  the 
soldier  don't  you  think  that  a  larger  number  would  ask  for  $10,000  ? 

Mr.  MAYS.  But  if  a  larger  number  asks  for  that,  then  it  shows  that. 
it  is  a  better  scheme. 

Mr.  GARNER.  It  is  a  better  scheme  if  you  are  going  to  give  him 
something,  but  you  don't  propose  to  give  him  something. 

Mr.  MAYS.  But  isn't,  after  all,  the  test  of  it  that  that  induces  them 
to  help  themselves? 

.Mr.  GARNER.  Yes;  and  I  believe  that  my  inducement  is  the  best 
method. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Will  you  permit  him  to  sell  that  farm  after  he 
bought  it? 

Mr.  GARNER.  Yes ;  and  mature  the  obligation  to  the  Government. 

Mr.  MAYS.  And  take  the  money  and  do  whatever  he  pleases  with  it  ? 

Mr.  GARNER.  Yes;  but  the  Government  has  still  got  the  $5,000  that 
he  owes  on  it.  The  Government  don't  lose  a  cent. 

If  I  owned  10,000,000  acres  of  land  myself  I  would  be  willing  to 
take  the  place  of  the  Government  and  say  to  each  soldier  in  the 
United  States: 

"  Come  along,  boys ;  I  will  sell  you  this  land  to  the  extent  of 
$5,000.  every  one  of  you.  Make  your  home  where  you  want  to.  If 
you  want  to  buy  10  acres  at  $5,000,  the  highest  land,  all  right ;  or 
if  you  want  to  buy  640  acres  of  the  poorest  land,  all  right;  just  so 
you  don't  purchase  more  than  $5,000  wrorth.  I  will  sell  you  this 
land  and  give  you  40  years'  time  at  5  per  cent  interest,  but  when  you 
leave  that  land  the  debt  becomes  due."  I  don't  lose  a  cent. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Would  you  send  this  man  that  you  bought  out  back  to 
the  city? 

Mr.  GARNER.  I  don't  know  about  that,  Mr.  Mays.  You  know  we 
are  creatures  of  environment.  When  you  buy  a  fellow  out,  who  was 
born  and  raised  in  the  country,  he  don't  usually  want  to  go  to  the 
city :  but  it  is  pretty  hard  to  get  the  city  boys  out  into  the  country. 

Mr.  VAILE.  After  each  of  our  wars,  after  the  war  of  1812, 1  believe 
also  after  the  Revolutionary  War  and  after  the  Civil  War,  we  had 
some  form  of  soldier  settlement  projects.  Those  were  really  in  es- 
sence, not  only  helping  the  soldiers,  but  the  policies  of  conservation, 
and  the  country  was  developed  largely  on  account  of  it.  Now,  is 
there  any  essential  fallacy  in  the  combination  of  the  two  ideas,  con- 
servation and  helping  the  soldier? 

Mr.  GARNER.  I  say  there  is  some  reason  for  it.  I  a.irree  with  yon 
there  is,  but  what  I  suggest  is  this,  that  it  is  wholly  impracticable.  It 
is  wholly  impractical  to  say  to  a  man  living  in  Kentucky,  that  you 
are  going  to  move  him  away  over  here  100  or  200  miles  and  let  him 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  165 

work  at  $100  a  month  to  produce  a  farm  out  of  the  worst  land  in 
Kentucky,  swamp  land  and  cut-over  land  that  nobody  else  wants, 
or  arid  land  in  my  section  of  the  country.  You  are  going  to  take  up 
the  worst  lands  in  the  country  and  you  are  going  to  use  his  high- 
priced  labor  to  produce  a  farm  there,  and  after  you  produce  it  you 
are  going  to  sell  it  to  that  poor  devil,  at  what  it  costs  to  produce  it. 

Mr.  VAILE.  He  is  not  obliged  to  produce  it. 

Mr.  GARNER.  No,  but  if  he  don't,  you  have  that  much  land  left 
idle;  and  the  remark  of  the  gentleman  a  while  ago  showed  really 
Avhat  the  purpose  of  it  was,  that  in  Mr.  Lane's  mind  there  was  the 
thought  that  if  in  the  course  of  three  years  this  land  was  not  occu- 
pied by  soldiers  they  would  let  somebody  else  in  it. 

Mr.  TILLMAN.  You  have  turned  a  lot  of  that  land  into  onion  land 
and  sugar  land,  which  is  now  very  valuable. 

Mr.  GARNER.  Yes,  a  great  deal  of  it — very  fine  land. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Don't  you  think  there  are  many  opportunities  in  your 
State  where  it  would  not  require  a  $5,000  loan  in  order  to  establish 
a  man  in  a  segregated  proposition  ? 

Mr.  GARNER.  Well,  of  course  I  think  $5,000  will  buy  a  man  a  home. 

Mr.  MAYS.  It  wouldn't  buy  much  $300-an-acre  land. 

Mr.  GARNER.  No,  but  he  don't  need  but  5  acres  of  $300-an-acre 
land. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  I  will  conccede  that  your  plan  is  more  liberal  toward 
the  soldiers  than  the  plan  outlined  in  the  Mondell  bill,  but  our  ad- 
vice here  from  experts  on  these  matters  has  been  practically  all 
against  the  scheme  which  you  propose.  They  say  it  would  not  be 
practical.  I  don't  know  whether  it  will  or  not.  Have  you  made 
any  investigation  into  these  matters  to  find  out  ?  Have  you  any  data 
that  you  could  submit  to  the  committee? 

Mi-.  GARNER.  No,  except  I  put  myself  in  the  place  of  the  soldier. 
That  is  the  only  way  I  know  how  to  do.  I  don't  know  how  to  do 
any  other  way,  but  to  put  myself  in  the  place  of  the  soldier.  I  have 
got  a  boy  who  served  in  this  war,  22  years  of  age ;  he  is  a  poor  boy. 
He  has  come  back  from  the  war  and  has  got  his  $60  and  a  uniform 
that  he  don't  know  what  to  do  with.  He  comes  to  me  and  talks  to 
me  and  his  mother  about  what  he  can  do.  Suppose  I  would  say  to 
him,  "  Now,  son,  you  know  the  Government  has  got  a  farm  up  here 
in  this  cut-over  land  in  east  Texas,  full  of  stumps,  sandy  land,  but 
it  is  good  land  if  you  once  get  it  under  cultivation.  A  man  can 
make  a  living  over  there.  Now  you  go  over  there  and  dig  out  the 
stumps,  and  they  will  give  you  $100  a  month  over  there  while  you 
dig  those  stumps,  and  help  to  build  a  dairy,  and  help  to  build  all 
the  other  things  that  go  to  make  that  community  a  center  there  a 
success,  and  when  you  get  through,  son,  then  you  can  buy  a  farm 
there  at  what  it  costs  to  produce  that  farm."  Now,  he  will  say: 
u  Well,  I  don't  know  about  that.  Mother  wants  me  to  stay  here  and 
I  don't  know  about  going  over  there." 

Then  I  might  say :  "  But  I  will  tell  you  another  scheme,  son.  You 
can  go  right  over  across  here  and  yon  can  buy  this  land,  a  hundred 
acres  of  land,  at  $50  an  acre  that  is  already  in  cultivation  and  has  got 
a  little  house  on  it  and  everything  of  th'at  kind,"  and  he  will  say: 
"  Father,  I  think  I  will  do  that."  Now,  I  just  ask  you,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  if  you  were  a  soldier,  which  one  of  these  schemes  would  you 
take? 


196  HOMES  FOK  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Why  not  give  him  his  choice  of  either  plan? 

Mr.  GARNER.  Well,  Mr.  Mays  asked  this  question,  why  not  give 
him  the  $5,000  and  all  that?  But  you  don't  propose  and  I  don't 
propose  to  give  him  anything.  I  ain  simply  trying  to  arrange  for 
him  to  own  a  farm,  and  that  is  all  you  are  trying  to  do  to-day.  Is 
there  anything  in  this  bill  except  to  give  a  soldier  a  chance  to  own  a 
farm?  That  is  all  there  is  in  my  suggestion — give  him  a  chance  to 
own  a  farm. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  an  amendment  embodying  your  ideas? 

Mr.  GARNER.  I  will  have  one,  sir,  as  sure  as  you  are  living,  if  you 
get  it  before  Congress.  That  is  one  thing  certain.  And  I  think  I 
know  parliamentary  law  enough  to  get  it  voted  on. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Just  a  moment  along  that  same  line?  Would  you 
favor  legislation  embodying  your  ideas  of  the  purchase  of  a  segre- 
gated unit? 

Mr.  GARNER.  I  don't  know  just  what  you  mean.  I  would  not  favor 
legislation  along  experimental  lines,  along  conservation  lines,  in  this 
bill.  I  want  to  reclaim  the  lands  in  this  country.  I  am  intensely 
interested  in  it ;  but  I  tell  you  I  don't  believe  it  is  fair  to  the  soldiers. 
I  just  can't  get  it  into  my  heart  that  it  is  treating  the  men  fair  to  say, 
"  On  account  of  your  patriotic  service  and  the  love  of  the  country,  for 
you  we  are  going  to  classify  you  and  give  you  a  preference,"  and 
then  offer  them  a  thing  like  this. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Would  you  favor  legislation  permitting  the  ?ol- 
dier  to  buy  a  segregated  tract  in  his  own  community  ? 

Mr.  GARNER.  Indeed  I  would.  If  I  was  going  into  this  experimen- 
tation scheme  that  you  have  here  with,  say,  $100,000,000,  that  you 
are  going  to  turn  over  to  Mr.  Lane  to  experiment  with,  I  would  give 
it  to  Mr.  Lane  and  tell  him  to  "  Go  and  experiment  with  it  where  you 
want  to."  I  would  take  the  three  classes  of  land  that  you  speak  of, 
cut-over  land,  swamp  land,  and  arid  land.  I  would  say :  "  Here  is 
$100,000,000,  Mr.  Secretary  of  the  Interior;  take  this  $100,000.000 
and  go  and  experiment  as  you  have  outlined  in  your  propaganda, 
and  see  if  you  can  make  it  work.  See  if  you  can  put  that  land  into 
the  form  of  community  settlements  and  sell  it  for  what  it  cost  you. 
If  you  can,  go  to  it;  we  will  furnish  you  plenty  more  money  to  do 
the  same  thing." 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  have  already  developed  that — that  we  can  do 
that  successfully. 

Mr.  GARNER.  Well.  I  will  join  you  in  that,  and  let  anybody  in 
the  world  settle  on  it  that  wants  to:  let  the  soldier  go  there  or  any- 
body else,  but  you  don't  have  to  provide  that  in  a  special  bill  for 
soldiers,  but  just  provide  enough  money  to  open  up  all  of  these  places, 
if  you  have  settled  the  fact  that  you  can  do  that,  and  then  let  every- 
body and  anybody  go  in  there  that  wants  to.  I  think  that  is  a  good 
plan,  because  I  will  favor  any  legislation  that  will  induce  people  to 
leave  the  cities  and  go  to  the  country,  but  when  you  say  you  are  going 
to  do  this  in  the  name  of  the  soldier,  in  order  that  you  may  benefit 
him.  now — and  last  year  it  was  urged  right  then  because  they  were 
coming  back — I  don't  believe  it  is  the  right  way  to  do  it. 

Mr.  MAYS.  You  would  be  satisfied  to  amend'the  title  of  this  bill, 
wouldn't  you? 

Mr.  GARNER.  And  make  it  a  conservation  bill :  yes. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  197 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Another  thing.  Mr.  Garner,  your  State  has  passed 
some  legislation  on  this  matter,  has  it  not?  Are  you  familiar  with 
that? 

Mr.  GARNER.  Xo.  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  voted  on  May  24,  did  they  not,  for  a  meas- 
ure of  this  kind? 

Mr.  GARNER.  That  was  an  amendment  to  the  constitution  not  on 
this  line.  That  was  to  lend  the  credit  of  the  State  in  order  to  assist 
people  who  did  not  own  farms  to  purchase  them,  but  they  will  not 
be  compelled  to  purchase  them  in  a  certain  community. 

Mr.  VAILE.  That  was  in  order  that  woman's  suffrage  might  be 
granted  to  the  people  of  Texas,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  GARNER.  You  see,  we  have  a  homestead  law  in  Texas,  and  if 
you  got  a  homestead  worth  $25.000  or  $100,000,  you  can't  borrow  a 
cent  on  it.  You  are  absolutely  insolvent  so  far  as  the  law  of  Texas 
is  concerned  if  you  haven't  got  additional  property. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  was  the  legislation  the  people  voted  on 
down  there  on  May  24,  permitting  the  State  to  lend  its  credit  for 
land-development  purposes? 

Mr.  GARNER.  That  is  the  proposed  amendment  to  the  constitution 
of  Texas  in  order  that  Texas  might  lend  its  credit  for  the  purpose  of 
assisting  the  people  in  buying  farms.  Now,  that  is  just  exactly  on 
the  line  of  what  I  am  talking  about,  but  yon  won't  find  Texas — now, 
mark  my  prediction — you  won't  find  Texas  appropriating  millions 
of  dollars  and  going  down  into  my  district,  into  the  arid  country,  and 
saying.  "We  are  going  to  take  100.000  acres  and  we  are. going  to 
segregate  it  there  and  spend  all  this  money  developing  it."  while  in 
the  balance  of  the  State  you  can  not  buy  a  farm  anywhere. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  a  little  wiser,  Mr.  Garner,  in  Texas  than 
the  other  States  have  been.  You  did  not  surrender  any  public  lands 
to  the  Federal  Government. 

Mr.  GARNER.  Well,  the  Federal  Government  did  not  surrender 
anything  to  us.  We  were  an  independent  republic  and  we  came  in 
on  equal  terms. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Let  me  ask  you  this  question  for  practical  demonstra- 
tion :  From  your  experience  in  this  district,  supposing  now  there  are 
a  thousand  soldiers  who  have  returned ;  some  are  married  and  some 
are  not;  thev  have  no  homes:  but  their  parents  live  in  and  about 
that  community.  Supposing  they  were  given  $5,000  apiece,  are  there 
places  and  lands  enough  there  now  that  those  boys  could  go  and  buy 
and  establish  their  homes  on  from  those  that  do  own  land,  and  go 
right  on  with  additional  improvements  and  improve  the  land  more 
than  it  has  been  ?  ;  t . 

Mr.  GARNER.  Yes.  Xow.  Mr.  Raker,  undoubtedly  if  you  had  this 
law  that  I  suggest,  and  a  boy  comes  down  there,  he  would  go  and  in- 
ve>t  that  $5.000  under  the  advice  of  his  father,  of  his  friends.  He 
would  say,  "  Xow.  where  is  the  best  land?  I  believe  I  will  go  down 
here  and  buy  some  raw  land.  I  will  get  more  of  it.  and  I  will  put 
this  land  in  cultivation.  I  will  have  a  stock  farm  and  put  part  of  it 
in  cultivation  and  part  of  it  I  will  raise  stock  on."  That  is  the 
most  prosperous  business  in  our  country.  Xeither  one  is  so  pros- 
perous that  excludes  the  other.  And  instead  of  that,  you  are  going 
to  arrange  here  for  one  particular  class  of  farmers. 


198  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  I  wanted  to  know,  right  in  addition,  is  there 
the  quantity  of  land  that  you  described  where  the  boy  can  do  that, 
now,  even  in  the  settled  community  where  you  live  ? 

Mr.  GARNER.  Well,  I  don't  know— you  speak  of  1,000—1  doubt 
whether  there  would  be.  You  would  have  to  cover  more  territory 
than  that.  But,  Mr.  Raker,  I  do  say  that  you  will  find  that  each 
community  will  be  able  to  take  care  of  its  own  people  in  the  propo- 
sition of  a  soldier  finding:  a  home,  and  as  I  remarked  a  minute  ago.  a 
man  from  Kentucky  or  Tennessee  that  has  been  to  France  and  has 
been  over  here  in  the  east,  the  eastern  part  of  the  United  States,  has 
got  a  roaming  disposition  and  he  wants  to  see  more  of  the  world — 
very  naturally.  What  does  he  say  to  his  father  and  mother?  "I 
would  like  to  go  down  to  Texas,"  or  "  I  would  like  to  go  down  to 
Arizona,"  or  up  into  Mr.  May's  country,  up  into  Utah.  "All  right, 
John,  go  ahead ;  God  bless  you ;  our  blessings  are  upon  you.  Go  out 
there,  select  a  farm.  You  can  borrow  $5,000  to  help  you  start  on  that 
farm  from  Uncle  Sam." 

Now,  if  you  don't  have  that  scheme,  if  you  have  your  scheme,  you 
say :  "  No,  John,  there  isn't  but  one  place  in  the  world  that  you  can 
go.  That  is  a  certain  place  out  there  where  they  are  going  to  put  in 
irrigation,  cut-over  land,  and  drain  the  swamps  " — or  the  other. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Mr.  Garner,  this  bill,  of  course,  contemplates  set- 
tlement, as  nearly  as  possible,  in  each  of  the  48  States,  which  does 
not  necessarily  mean  arid  lands,  swamp  lands,  or  cut-over  lands.  It 
has  been  brought  out  repeatedly  in  these  hearings,  and  it  is  contem- 
plated, as  I  figure  it  out,  taking  Secretary  Lane's  estimate  at  about 
$6,000,  which  would  probably  be  the  total  amount  primarily  loaned 
to  the  soldier;  this  will  take  care  of  83,000  soldiers.  Now.  if  we 
were  to  divide  that  between  48  States,  then  we  are  only  providing  an 
opportunity  for  1,700  soldiers  in  each  State.  This,  as  I  understand. 
would  not  necessarily  have  to  be  all  in  one  State  or  one  locality,  or 
anything  of  the  kind.  One  hundred  families,  for  instance,  would 
make  a  very  nice  little  unit,  and  the  fact  that  this  might  be  divided 
up  into  10  "or  15  or  17  different  localities  in  the  States,  would  that 
modify  your  views? 

Mr.  GARNER.  Well,  I  got  the  impression  that  probably  with  the 
amount  of  money  you  got  you  would  not  hardly,  have  over  48 
projects  in  the  United  States.  The  money  would  hardly  pay  for 
more  than  48  projects  of  the  kind  Mr.  Lane  has  outlined  in  the  state- 
ments I  saw,  because  he  proposed  to  cut  out  a  certain  block  of  land 
here  and  do  certain  things,  and  the  amount  of  money  you  have  got 
here  would  not  provide  for  more  than  48  projects. 

Mr. .SUMMERS.  It  has  been  brought  out  here  that  projects  of  4,000 
to  8.000  acres  would  be  quite  respectable  projects. 

Mr.  GARNER.  Well,  gentlemen,  I  did  not  want  to  press  my  views 
on  you.  You  wrote  a  letter  to  the  various  delegations,  and,  as  I  say, 
the^Texas  delegation  took  you  too  seriously,  and  supposing  that  you 
really  wanted  to  know  what  our  views  were  we  got  in  there  and  hob- 
nobbed around  for  about  two  hours,  and  I  think  I  speak  the  senti- 
ment of  the  delegation.  They  want  to  do  something  for  the  soldiers. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Could  not  your  plan  be  followed  out  under  the  pro- 
visions of  this  law  if  it  'is  enacted?  There  is  nothing  in  here  to 
prohibit  the  plan  you  suggest. 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  199 

Mr.  GARNER.  Well,  probably  not.  I  read  your  bill,  but  I  don't 
think  I  see  any  provision  in  it  for  that. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  would  you  think  of  this  proposition?  The 
record  shows  that  there  are  about  1,500,000  acres  of  available  land 
under  established  projects,  projects  uncompleted  but  that  can  be  com- 
pleted in  all  the  way  from  6  months  to  a  year  and  a  half.  If  we 
appropriated  enough  money  to  get  enough  of  these  soldiers  right 
onto  these  projects  now,  these  million  and  a  half  acres  would  be 
available  at  once. 

Mr.  GARNER.  That  would  be  all  right  so  far  as  the  employment 
scheme  is  concerned;  yes.  Another  thing,  Mr.  Raker,  I  will  go  with 
you  to  the  full  length  of  this  bill  toward  appropriating  money  to  re- 
claim the  desert  lands  of  the  West.  I  have  always  been  in  favor  of 
that,  I  will  go  with  you  to  the  fullest  length  after  you  first  demon- 
strate— I  refer  now  to  cut-over  land.  I  want  to  get  an  experiment  in 
that  line.  When  I  get  an  experiment  in  cut-over  lands  I  am  willing 
to  go  to  the  full  length  of  reclaiming  every  acre  in  this  country. 
The  same  with  swamp  land,  but  I  don't  want  to  go  in  and  do  this  ex- 
perimenting and  then  go  and  tell  the  soldiers :  "  Gentlemen,  you  have 
been  patriotic  and  we  want  to  do  something  for  you."  There  is 
nothing  in  this  bill  for  the  soldier  except  to  give  him  possible  emploj^- 
ment,  so  far  as  benefiting  him  by  giving  him  a  home  and  a  home- 
stead is  concerned.  I  don't  want  to  be  harsh  in  my  language,  but  I 
think  it  is  an  insult  to  him  to  talk  to  him  about  going  to  produce  a 
farm  like  this  and  buying  it  from  the  Government  for  what  it  cost. 

Mr.  VAILE.  It  has  occurred  to  me  that  the  individual  buying  of 
land  by  the  soldier  was  simply  lending  him  money  to  buy  land  with, 
and  that  doing  that,  allowing  him  to  buy  wherever  he  wants  to,  is 
bound  to  bring  in  a  large  amount  of  real  estate  speculation.  Could 
that  be  effected  satisfactorily  without  the  intervention  of  the  real 
estate  speculator? 

Mr.  GARNER.  I  will  say  to  you  that  that  is  the  principal  objection 
that  I  have  to  the  suggestion  I  made.  I  will  be  very  frank  with  you, 
that  is  the  principal  objection  that  I  see  to  it.  But  whatever  you  do, 
if  you  are  going  to  really  help  the  soldier — I  mean  if  you  are  going 
to  really  help  him,  not  pretend  to  help  him  and  hold  up  a  gauze  here 
that  he  can  see  through — you  are  going  to  increase  the  circulating 
medium  of  this  country.  That  is  what  you  are  going  to  do.  There 
isn't  any  use  of  talking  about  going  out  and  helping  a  great  class  of 
people  without  increasing  or  boosting  up  something.  You  can't  do  it. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  That  would  be  true,  Mr.  Garner,  that  at  home  he 
would  in  most  cases  have  the  chance  of  advising  with  his  father  and 
mother  and  friends,  I  believe,  to  as  great  degree  as  he  would  have  on 
one  of  these  projects. 

Mr.  GARNER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Suppose  he  lived  in  the  city. 

Mr.  GARNER.  I  will  answer,  if  he  lives  in  the  city,  all  right.  My 
boy  lives  in  Washington  now  and  he  has  served  in  the  war  and  wants 
to  buy  a  home  in  Texas.  Now,  what  do  I  do  with  him  ?  I  say  to  him : 
"All  right,  here  is  a  letter.  Go  from  here  to  Houston  and  see  the 
farm  loan  bank  and  get  hold  of  the  agent  and  tell  him  to  go  and  help 
you  buy  a  good  farm."  The  Government  is  indirectly  loaning  money 
on  land  now  through  the  farm  loan  bank  and  loaning  money  to  the 


200  HOMES   FOE  SOLDIERS. 

extent  of  60  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  land,  and  this  is  just  carrying 
that  plan  one  step  further  and  loaning  them  100  per  cent.  It  is  the 
farm  loan  bank  plan  exactly  with  the  modification  that  instead  of 
loaning  60  per  cent  they  loan  them  100  per  cent.  That  is  what  I  tell 
my  boy,  if  he  lives  in  Washington,  go  down  to  Houston  and  see  the 
farm  loan  agent  and  get  him  to  take  you  out  and  help  you  to  buy  a 
good  farm.  We  will  have  a  Government  agent  for  the  purpose  of  ad- 
vising that  boy  in  getting  a  good  farm,  and  he  is  not  going  to  be 
cheated. 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  farm  loan  bank  is  doing  one  thing,  Mr.  Garner, 
that  where  men  are  trying  to  get  loans  on  their  lands  the  agents  have 
gone  in  and  appraised  the  property  and  have  got  it  down  to  its  real, 
actual  value,  and  the  people  that  are  buying  and  investing  are  getting 
land  for  one-third  to  one-fifth  of  what  they  got  it  for  a  year  ago  by 
the  farm  loan  agents  really  appraising  the  land  at  what  it  is  worth. 

Mr.  GARNER.  Now,  I  repeat,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  join  with  this 
committee  and  join  with  anybody  in  the  conservation  of  the  resources 
of  the  country.  You  have  seen  enough — Mr.  Taylor  has  especially 
since  I  have  been  in  Congress.  He  has  been  here  long  enough  to  know 
that  I  will  join  with  the  West  in  their  reclamation  service  and  join 
with  the  East  or  the  Middle  West  in  the  cut-over  land  and  swamp- 
land reclamation.  I  want  to  reclaim  these  things,  but  gentlemen,  let 
us  experiment  with  the  two  latter  propositions — we  have  nlrojuly  ex- 
perimented with  the  first — and  let  us  not  tell  the  soldier  that  we  are 
going  to  do  all  this  for  him,  because  it  will  not  help  him ;  we  are  doing 
it  for  the  whole  people  of  the  United  States ;  and  if  we  are  going  to 
help  these  soldiers,  induce  them  to  leave  the  city  and  produce  more  in 
the  country  on  the  farm,  let  us  sell  the  soldier  a  farm  where  he  wants 
it  and  where  he  will  be  socially  congenial  and  have  happy  surround- 
ings and  not  force  him  to  go  to  some  other  place  where  he  may  not 
want  to  live. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Would  the  State  of  Texas,  in  your  judgment,  approve 
of  extending  the  present  reclamation  law  so  that  it  will  apply  to  cut- 
over  land  and  swamp  land,  and  then  also  add  your  provision  to  this 
bill,  so  as  to  make  it  possible  that  we  might  carry  out  both  ? 

Mr.  GARNER.  I  believe  they  would,  Mr.  Taylor.  I  have  never 
talked  to  an  audience  in  Texas,  even  in  middle  Texas,  where  I  was 
born  and  raised.  I  have  never  talked  to  one  of  them  that  was  not 
in  favor  of  the  Government  activities  in  the  direction  of  reclaiming 
hrid  lands.  And  I  have  heard  them  talk  about  swamp  lands — I 
iwver  heard  so  much  about  cut-over  lands — never  had  a  great  deal 
of  discussion  over  that,  but  the  swamp  lands  and  arid  lands  in  our 
country,  they  are  in  favor  of  the  Government  activities  there,  and  I 
am  in  favor  of  it,  and  I  believe  you  will  find  the  whole  United 
States  is  in  favor  of  it.  But,  gentlemen,  when  you  come  to  say: 
"  We  are  going  to  do  this  in  the  name  of  the  soldier  and  for  the  benefit 
of  the  soldier,"  it  is  not  so,  and  you  ought  not  to  try  to  fool  the 
soldiers. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Well,  we  loan  him  money  at  a  low  rate  of  interest  and 
long-time  payments. 

Mr.  (lAitNKi;.  Yes;  and  the  land  will  cost  him  so  much  more  at  4 
per  cent  that  he  could  go  right  out  there  and  rent  land  right  next 
to  it  at  a  better  price. 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  201 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  is  not  the  intention  of  the  Interior  Department  to 
reclaim  tracts  of  land  that  would  not  be  worth  what  they  cost. 

Mr.  GARNER.  Down  in  our  country  when  we  reclaim  this  land  we 
do  it  with  Mexican  labor  by  contract.  I  mean  by  contract  that  they 
grub  an  acre  of  land  for  $6  to  $8.  There  isn't  a  soldier  in  the  United 
States,  I  will  say,  that  hasn't  had  any  experience,  that  could  grub 
one  of  those  acres  of  land  in  a  month  to  save  his  life,  and  the  cost 
would  be  $100  in  place  of  $6  or  $8.  That  is  the  point  exactly.  The 
same  way  with  digging  those  ditches,  and  the  same  way  with  every- 
thing else.  When  you  pay  $100  a  month  to  the  soldier  and  he  is 
going  to  work  eight  hours  a  day,  and  that  is  what  you  are  going  to 
pay.  and  you  are  going  to  put  the  eight-hour  clause  in  it.  The  cost 
of  production  is  too  great. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Just  carrying  your  thought  one  step  further,  suppos- 
ing we  amend  the  irrigation  law  just  as  it  stands,  letting  it  apply 
to  all  the  States,  including  swamp  and  cut-over  land,  and  then  appro- 
priate a  sufficient  amount  of  money  to  carry  it  out. 

Mr.  GARNER.  I  will  help  you. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then  we  will  have  the  machinery  to  go  right  in. 

Mr.  GARNER.  You  do  that  in  the  name  of  conservation. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes;  in  the  name  of  making  this  country  produce  all 
it  possibly  can. 

Mr.  GARNER.  I  am  in  favor  of  it,  but,  Mr.  Raker,  don't  do  that 
in  the  name  of  trying  to  immediately  help  the  soldiers. 

Mr.  MAYS.  There  would  be  no  objection  to  giving  a  soldier  pref- 
erence, would  there? 

Mr.  GARNER.  Oh,  no:  certainly  not.  That  will  help  him  some.  I 
believe  in  giving  him  all  the  preference  possible,  but,  Mr.  Mays,  don't 
go  and  undertake  to  do  something  the  purpose  of  which  is  something 
else,  and  say :  "  Now  boys,  this  is  all  to  help  you."  That  is  not  true. 
We  don't  want  to  fool  these  soldiers,  and  you  won't  fool  them  long 
either.  They  will  have  enough  live  people  among  them  to  tell  them 
"  Xo  don't  be  fooled ;  here  is  the  practical  effect  of  this." 

Mr.  MAYS.  If  they  profit  by  it  they  wouldn't  care  whether  they 
are  fooled  or  not.  would  they  ? 

Mr.  GARNER.  Well,  I  suppose  not.  But  I  think  you  will  find 
some  patriotic  men,  Mr.  Mays,  among  the  soldiers.  I  think  you  are 
going  to  find  some  of  them  that  are  going  to  put  the  welfare  of  this 
country  above  selfish  interests. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Just  carrying  this  thought  one  step  further,  if  you 
do  that  and  give  the  soldier  the  preference  right  to  get  one  of  these 
homes  where  he  can  come  in  in  six  months  or  a  year  and  put  himself 
on  the  land,  would  it  not  really  be  giving  the  soldier  some  recogni- 
tion? 

Mr.  GARNER.  Yes;  that  would  give  him  some  recognition,  certainly, 
and  I  will  join  in  that,  and  I  think  you  will  find  everyone  else  will 
join  you  in  an  effort  to  do  that.  But  when  you  come  along  and  say, 
'•  Wi>  are  going  to  make  this  a  fine  thing  for  the  soldier,  and  this 
is  what  we  are  going  to  do  for  the  soldier,"  it  is  not  going  to  work 
out,  as  well  you  know. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  WTe  thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Garner.  Gentle- 
men, it  is  now  12  o'clock  and  the  committee  will  stand  adjourned 
until  10  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 

(Whereupon,  at  12  o'clock  noon,  the  committee  adjourned  until 
10  o'clock  a.  m..  Thursday,  June  5,  1919.) 


202  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

COMMITTEE  ON  PUBLIC  LANDS, 

HOUSE  or  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Tuesday,  June  5,  1919. 

The  committee  met  at  10.15  a.  m.,  Hon.  Nichols  J.  Sinnott  (chair- 
man) presiding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  come  to  order. 

Mr.  RAKER.  ^Before  you  proceed,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  received  yester- 
day— and  I  suppose  all  the  other  Members  of  the  House  did — five 
pages  of  typewritten  matter  relative  to  this  bill  from  the  Farmers' 
Alliance — the  National  Grange.  It  is  sent  out  for  circulation  and 
evidently  to  pre  prejudice  the  public  mind  with  the  idea  that  this 
committee  is  not  fair  and  is  not  giving  parties  like  this  an  oppor- 
tunity to  be  heard,  which,  of  course,  is  absolutely  unfounded  and 
contrary  to  the  facts. 

To  the  end  that  these  people  may  have  a  hearing  and  that  we  may 
cross-examine  them,  I  move  you  that  the  president  and  the  secretary 
of  this  association — they  say  they  are  in  Washington — be  invited  to 
appear  before  the  committee  and  be  requested  to  come  in  order  that 
we  may  have  an  opportunity  to  hear  them. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  Judge,  before  you  go  into  that,  will  you  got 
the  letter,  Mr.  Baldwin,  that  you  wrote  to  Mr.  Atkeson  yesterday? 
Were  you  here  yesterday,  Judge,  when  we  had  up  the  matter  of  the 
change  in  Mr.  Atkeson's  testimony  ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  am  always  here,  Mr.  Chairman,  but  the  last  wTeek 
I  have  been  bothered  with  my  ears,  and  I  can  hardly  hear  what 
goes  on  in  the  committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  asked  to  have  certain  editorials  incorporated 
in  the  record,  and  the  motion  was  made  by  Mr.  Elston  and  the 
clerk  of  the  committee  sent  to  him  this  letter : 

The  Public  Lands  Committee,  at  a  meeting  this  morning,  discussed  the  mat- 
ter of  allowing  you  to  insert  the  newspaper  clippings  attached  to  your  testi- 
mony, when  I  returned  the  same  to  you  for  correction;  also  the  mutter  of 
material  change  in  the  answer  to  a  question  asked  of  you  at  the  time  you 
made  your  statement. 

The  following  motion  was  made  and  carried : 

"That  Mr.  Atkeson  be  permitted  to  appear  before  the  committee  later  and 
submit  his  special  request  that  tlie  newspaper  articles  be  inserted,  and  to  give 
such  further  testimony  as  he  wishes  in  connection  with  the  matter  under 
consideration.  In  the  meantime  the  testimony  should  remain  as  taken  by 
the  stenographer." 

The  chairman  directs  me  to  inform  you  of  this  and  to  invite  you  to  appear 
before  the  committee,  if  you  desire,  for  this  purpose. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  I  wanted  is  to  have  the  direct  action  of  the  com- 
mittee, so  that  we  may  have  this  president  and  secretary,  or  some 
one  else,  appear  before  the  committee  in  order  that  we  may  examine 
them.  I  want  to  find  out  who  is  paying  this  money  for  this  propa- 
ganda; who  is  behind  the  theory  of  it,  instead  of  allowing  them  to 
rritiri/e  the  committee  and  saying  that  we  did  not  give  them  a 
chance,  which  is  not  a  fact.  This  man  was  given  an  opportunity  to 
make  a  statement  and  every  member  of  the  committee  was  given  an 
opportunity  to  examine  him,  and  we  might  just  as  well  investigate 
here  as  any  other  plan-.  \Yo  have  started  out  on  the  right  founda- 
tion; and,  if  we  give  everybody  a  fair  opportunity,  wo  have  got 
something  then  that  they  won't  attempt  to  attack. 

The  CIIAIKMAN.  Will  you  state  your  motion? 


HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS.  203 

Mr.  RAKER.  My  motion  is  that  they  be  directed  to  appear  before 
the  committee. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Invited  to  appear. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well,  invited. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Suppose  you  have  the  clerk,  Mr.  Chairman,  write  to 
this  man  that  the  committee  has  officially  taken  this  formal  action, 
in  addition  to  the  action  of  the  chairman  the  committee  asks  him 
to  come  here  and  speak  up  before  the  committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  have  a  legislative  committee  and  an  execu- 
tive committee  in  the  city.  We  might  invite  their  representatives  to 
appear. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes ;  that  is  the  purpose  of  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Without  ob]ection,  that  will  be  done.  That  in- 
vitation is  issued  in  view  of  these  circulars  that  are  being  sent  around. 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  purpose  is,  in  addition  to  that,  when  the  man 
is  right  here  in  the  city — this  committee  has  adjourned  its  hearings 
for  a  month  at  a  time  in  order  to  give  people  a  chance  to  come  across 
the  continent  and  be  heard ;  and  when  we  start  out  on  an  important 
matter  like  this,  and  men  right  here  in  Washington  assume  that  a 
things  is  so,  when  it  is  not  a  fact,  I  think  it  is  our  duty  to  bring 
them  right  up  to  the  snubbing  post. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  fact  is  that  Mr.  Atkeson  stated  he  would  need 
less  than  15  minutes,  and  two  or  three  times  in  the  record  it  was 
stated  that  certain  questions  would  not  be  taken  out  of  his  time. 
He  stated  twice  that  he  was  through,  as  far  as  he  was  concerned. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  would  like  to  have  your  invitation  go  into  the  record, 
Mr.  Chairman.  Put  it  in  there,  so  that  it  will  go  along  with  his 
statement. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Has  Mr.  Atkeson  had  an  opportunity  of  replying  to 
this  letter  from  the  chairman  or  the  clerk  If  not,  there  is  no  occa- 
sion for  the  committee  taking  any  further  action  now. 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  action  of  the  committee,  as  indicated  by  my  mo- 
tion, was  taken  by  reason  of  a  nine-page  press  notice  in  which  it  is 
stated  that  this  is  a  packed  committee. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Who  is  the  letter  from? 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Who  is  it  addressed  to? 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  is  not  addressed  to  anybody,  but  it  purports  to  come 
from  the  people  represented  by  Mr.  Atkeson. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  do  not  think  it  is  safe  to  assume  that  he  wrote  that 
letter. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Mr.  Raker,  did  you  say  the  communication  is  un- 
signed ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Then,  why  should  this  committee  pay  any  attention 
to  it  whatever? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I  don't  think  this  committee  ought  to  notice  an 
anonymous  matter  like  that, 

Mr.  MAYS.  Well,  it  is  going  to  all  the  papers  in  the  United  States. 
The  CHAIRMAN.  There  are  charges  in  there  that  should  not  be 
ignored. 

Mr.  B  ARBOUR.  Couldn't  we  have  copies  of  it,  Mr.  Chairman?  I 
have  never  seen  this  letter.  Couldn't  we  get  copies  of  it? 


204  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

( 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  has  been  sent  generally  to  members  of  the 
House,  I  believe. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Mr.  Chairman,  in  my  judgment,  we  should  wait  a  day 
or  two  to  see  whether  Mr.  Atkeson  responds  personally  or  by  letter 
to  the  request  of  the  committee  to  appear. 

Mr.  RAKER.  No ;  I  am  in  favor  of  nipping  this  thing  right  in  the 
bud.  They  did  the  same  thing  two  years  ago  on  the  oil  business,  and 
the  record  showed  that  they  were  spending  two  or  three  hundred 
thousand  dollars  for  this  propaganda,  and  when  we  brought  the  men 
before  the  committee  they  tried  to  get  out  of  it  and  showed  that 
there  wasn't  anything  in  the  statement  made,  and  we  proceeded  with 
proper  legislation  instead  of  having  the  money  expended  to  try 
to  besmirch  the  committee  and  the  House  and  taking  no  action  on  it. 
I  believe  in  hitting  the  thing  right  on  the  head  and  bringing  them 
right  up  here  now  while  this  matter  is  under  consideration. 

Mr.  BKN  HAM.  Who  will  we  reply  to  in  the  matter,  if  it  is  an  anony- 
mous letter?  To  whom  will  we  direct  our  reply  ( 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  will  answer  that  [reading]:  "Press  notice.  For 
Washington  correspondents  and  press  associations.  For  release  upon 
receipt." 

Xow,  it  goes  on  to  state  that  this  organization  will  fight  this  matter 
anld  that  their  representatives  did  not  have  a  hearing,  and  evidently 
it  must  come  from  them.  If  it  did  not  come  from  them,  then  they 
can  come  before  the  committee  and  say  it  did  not.  Some  faker  lias 
started  this  thing,  and  I  want  to  know  who  he  is.  That  is  all.  But 
the  motion  is  carried. 

The  CIIAIRMAX.  Gentlemen,  we  have  witnesses  here  that  desire  to 
be  heard.  Do  you  desire  to  be  heard,  Mr.  Starr '.  Will  you  state 
your  name  and  whom  you  represent  ? 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  WESTERN  STARR,  OF  BALTIMORE,  MD.,  REP- 
RESENTING THE  FARMERS'  NATIONAL  SINGLE  TAX  LEAGUE. 

Mr.  STARR.  Mr.  Chairman,  my  name  is  Western  Starr,  and  I  am 
a  resident  of  Baltimore.  I  am  a  farmer.  I  represent  the  Farmers' 
National  Single  Tax  League,  and  I  am  here  on  their  behalf  as  well 
as  on  my  own  to  oppose  this  bill  on  several  grounds. 

As  a  preliminary  I  would  like  to  state  that  the  activities  of  the 
departments  of  the  Government  and  the  great  interest  that  has  been 
shown  by  different  Congressmen,  as  evidenced  by  the  number  of  bills 
that  have  been  introduced  covering  this  broad  question  in  part,  and 
including  in  part  other  questions,  indicate  a  state  of  the  public  mind 
that  is  entirely  worthy  of  the  most  serious  attention  of  this  com- 
mittee, and  I  believe  it  has  in  hand  at  this  time  one  of  the  most 
important  questions,  one  of  the  most  important  general  subjects  that 
can  come  before  the  Congress  at  any  time. 

Mr.  Kent  indicated  it  probably  as  well  in  his  remarks  yesterday 
when  he  said  the  bill  should  properly  be  described  as  a  bill  to  dis- 
tribute or  redistribute  population.  Now,  the  very  title  of  the  bill, 
in  my  mind,  condemns  it.  It  purports  to  provide  employment  and 
rural  homes  for  those  who  have  served  in  the  military  and  naval 
force-,  through  the  reclamation  of  lands,  etc.  Now.  just  let  us  take, 
a  minute  on  that.  Assume  that  there  were  1.000,000  men  in  the 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  205 

uniformed  service  of  the  United  States  during  the  late  unpleasant- 
ness. If  we  estimate  the  number  of  those  who  came  from  farms  in 
proportion  to  those  who  came  from  cities  by  the  absolute  fact  of  the 
relative  proportions  of  the  population,  about  one-third  of  them 
r*ame  from  farms  and  the  balance  came  from  the  cities.  In  addition 
to  the  4,000,000  in  the  uniformed  service,  there  were  about  7.000.000 
or  8,000,000  in  the  ununiformed  service  this  side  of  the  water  whose 
services  were  equally  important  with  those  in  uniform. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  If  it  will  not  interrupt  you.  could  you  give  the 
figures  how  you  arrive  at  that  one-third  ? 

Mr.  STAI;R.  Because  the  population  of  this  country  lives  one-third 
in  the  country  and  two-thirds  in  the  city.  About  33  to  35  per. cent 
of  the  population  of  the  Republic  lives  in  the  rural  districts,  farmers 
that  live  upon  farms.  Fifty  years  ago  TO  per  cent  were  living  in 
the,  country.  Xow  there  is  only  about  30  to  35  per  cent  that  are 
living  in  the  country,  and  if  the  conscription  measures  were  propor- 
tionately and  fairly  administered,  as  I  have  a  right  to  assume  they 
were  and  as  the  record  seems  to  show,  two-thirds  of  the  soldiers  that 
were  put  across  and  put  into  uniforms  came  from  the  cities,  the 
urban  districts,  and  only  one-third  came  from  the  country. 

Now,  in  addition  to  that,  it  took  four — the  least  estimate  that  I 
have  ever  seen  was  that  it  took  four  men  out  of  uniform  to  support 
one  man  in  uniform.  There  are  those  that  claim  that  it  takes  five 
men  in  civilian  clothes  to  support  one  man  in  uniform.  Xow,  the 
men  who  were  not  in  uniform,  but  who  were  just  as  seriously  engaged 
in  this  war,  and  who  made  every  sacrifice,  except  the  peril  of  death 
and  maiming,  wounding,  permanent  crippling,  are  just  as  much  en- 
titled to  consideration  in  any  bill  which  this  committee  has  to  consider 
for  the  distributing  of  public  lands  and  providing  homes  and  employ- 
ment as  the  men  who  are  in  uniform. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Don't  you  make  any  distinction  between  the  man  who 
goes  out  and  makes  the  last  offering  for  his  country,  who  offers  his 
life,  and  the  man  who  stays  at  home  and  enjoys  the  comforts  of 
peace  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  Certainly  I  do.  I  make  a  big  distinction.  I  make  a 
great  distinction. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Your  statement  would  imply  that  you  did  not. 

Mr.  STARR.  No,  sir;  I  will  not  allow  you  to  assume  that,  if  you 
please.  I  remember  what  I  said. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  The  record  will  remember  better  than  you  or  I  either 
can. 

Mr.  STARR.  I  don't  wish  to  antagonize  the  gentleman  at  all 

Mr.  FERRIS  (interposing).  Now  just  wait  a  minute.  You  are  a 
witness  before  this  committee.  You  just  hold  on. 

Mr.  STARR.  I  will  answer  any  question. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  are  here  at  the  pleasure  of  the  committee.  Just 
wait  a  minute.  Read  that  statement  back  there  that  the  gentleman 
made. 

The  reporter  read  the  record,  as  follows : 

Now.  the  men  who  wore  not  in  uniform  but  who  were  just  n^  seriously  en- 
gaged in  this  war.  and  who  made  every  sacrifice,  except  the  peril  of  deal1!  and 
maiming,  wounding,  permanent  crippling,  are  just  as  much  entitled  to  cnnsHera- 
tion  in  any  hill  which  this  committee  lias  to  consider  for  the  distrihutin.tr  of 
public  lands  and  providing  homes  and  employment  as  the  men  who  are  in 
uniform. 


206  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  STARR.  I  think  that  is  what  I  said. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Then  that  is  the  statement  of  fact  that  you  want  the 
committee  to  have? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  am  willing  the  committee  should  have  it  in  just  that 
way. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  don't  desire  to  change  it,  and  that  is  your  view  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  have  not  finished  my  remarks  yet,  and  I  propose  to 
extend  them  to  cover  that  point,  if  you  will  allow  me  to  continue  long 
enough  to  do  so. 

I  am  making  the  criticism  here  that  the  bill  is  confined  strictly 
to  uniformed  service — the  men  who  served  in  uniform.  Now,  I  am 
making  this  point,  that  if  you  propose  to  have  a  bill  that  is  practical, 
a  workable  bill,  and  which  will  produce  the  results  that  the  committee 
desires  to  have  accomplished,  you  have  got  to  extend  it  and  make  no 
distinction  in  allowing  men,  whether  they  were  in  uniform  or  not  in 
uniform,  to  take  advantage  of  the  bounty  of  the  Government  in  pro- 
viding homes  for  themselves.  That  is  the  point  I  want  to  make. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Where  do  you  make  the  limit,  or  do  you  make  any 
limit  at  all  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  No  limit  at  all. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Make  it  apply  to  everybody  in  the  United  States? 

Mr.  STARR.  Everybody  in  the  United  States  who  wants  to  take 
advantage  of  the  provision  of  Congress  to  get  a  home  and  add  to  the 
productive  power  of  the  country  should  have  the  same  right  that 
every  other  man  has. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Let  me  understand  you.  Then  in  what  way  would 
you  favor  the  soldier  over  the  man  who  was  not  a  soldier  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  When  I  reach  that  point  I  will  tell  you. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  But  you  have  reached  it  twice — three  times.  You 
have  stated  that  you  would  put  this  bill  and  all  other  bills — that  you 
would  have  it  apply  to  nonsoldiers  the  same  as  to  soldiers. 

Mr.  STARR.  I  think  if  the  gentleman  will  permit  me — T  haven't 
gotten  ten  words  beyond  the  point  that  you  are  raising.  I  will  anti- 
cipate  my  remarks. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Well,  go  ahead. 

Mr.  STARR.  I  will  anticipate  what  I  intended  to  say  in  the  order 
in  which  I  intended  to  say  it,  and  now  I  would  give  the  uniformed 
men  a  preference  over  anybody  else  as  to  a  particular  site  or  lo^a- 
tion.  The  time  is  not  so  long  ago — less  than  30  years  ago — when 
Oklahoma  belonged  to  the  United  States  Government,  and  when  the 
time  was  announced  that  they  were  going  to  open  it  up,  they  camped 
on  the  borders  of  Oklahoma  for  weeks,  to  make  a  rush  to  the  place 
that  they  had  picked  out.  Now  there  would  be  no  possibility  of  that 
in  the  proposition  that  I  wish  to  make.  Let  every  man — 

Mr.  FERRIS  (interposing).  That  was  not  a  soldier  proposition  at 
all. 

Mr.  STARR.  That  was  not  a  soldier  proposition,  but  you  are  going 
to  make  a  uniform  tiling  to  everybody,  and  it  will  be  practically  the 
same  tiling  here  unless  you  make  a  distinction. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  There  is  no  disposition  to  make  this  uniform.  This 
applies  to  the  man  who  served  his  country  alone. 

Mr.  STARR.  You  are  providing  for  the  uniformed  soldier  solely: 
I  maintain,  and  I  think  I  can  show,  that  unless  yon  make  it  apply 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  20 7 

to  everybody,  with  such  distinctions  in  favor  of  the  uniformed  nmn 
as  gives  them  a  preference,  your  bill  will  amount  to  nothing  in  re- 
sults. That  is  what  I  am  trying  to  tell  you. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Idaho.  Mr.  Starr,  do  you  not  think  it  would  be 
well  to  let  the  soldiers  have  the  preference  for  two  or  three  years, 
and  then  bring  in  the  civilians  if  the  soldiers  do  not  want  the  land  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  If  you  care  to  do  that ;  3'es. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Idaho.  I  think  that  would  meet  your  position, 
would  it  not? 

Mr.  STARR.  What  I  am  trying  to  get  at  is  here — you  will  pardon 
me,  and  I  hope  the  committee  will  not  misunderstand  me  when  I 
make  this  statement — it  has  already  been  stated  by  men  who  are 
close  students  of  affairs  and  of  social  philosophy  and  of  political 
activity,  that  this  bill,  is  not  intended  as  a  genuine  bill  to  help  any- 
body except  a  few  politicians  who  wish  to  capitalize  the  soldier  vote. 

Mr.  KAKER.  Just  a  moment,  now,  gentlemen — 

Mr.  WHITE  (interposing).  Is  that  your  statement? 

Mr.  STARR.  That  is  not  my  opinion. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  "will  you  state  in  the  record  who  those  people 
are? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  can't  give  you  the  names. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  you  have  made  a  very  broad  statement.  Can  you 
give  the  names  of  any  of  them — of  anybody  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  Why,  I  don't  know  that  I  can.  I  have  heard  it  dis- 
cussed in  conversations. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Who  have  you  heard  discuss  it  along  the  line  that 
you  suggest  now? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  have  heard  different  people  discuss  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Name  a  few  of  them. 

Mr.  STARR.  I  am  not  going  to  name  any  of  them. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  can't  name  a  single  one? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  don't  want  to  name  them.  I  am  not  going  to  name 
them. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Why  not? 

Mr.  STARR.  Simply  because  I  haven't  their  consent  to  name  them. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  can't  withhold — just  a  moment  now — I  am  going 
to  have  something  to  say  on  this  committee  myself.  A  man  comes 
here  and  makes  a  charge  of  this  kind,  and  we  are  entitled  to  get  the 
names  of  the  men  that  make  the  statements,  and  I  demand  of  you 
now  that  you  give  their  names. 

Mr.  STARR.  Well,  I  want  to  make  this  statement  now.  I  have  not 
stated  this  as  my  opinion  at  all;  I  have  expressly  said  that  it  was 
not  my  opinion. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  don't  care  whether  you  stated  it  as  your  opinion  or 
not ;  you  stated  that  certain  men  are  making  this  kind  of  statements. 
Now.  kindly — to  the  end  that  we  may  find  out  the  truth  about  this 
matter — give  the  names  of  some  of  these  people. 

Mr.  STARR.  I  can't  do  it;  I  won't  do  it. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Mr.  Starr,  were  any  of  them  soldiers? 

Mr.  STARR.  No ;  none  of  them  were  soldiers. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Is  your  interest  in  the  bill  political  or 
economical  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  Purely  economic.  I  have  no  party  and  I  belong  to  no 
party. 

133319—19 14 


208  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Your  aspersion  would  apply,  then,  to  the 
members  of  this  committee,  who  are  supposed  to  be  in  politics? 

Mr.  STARR.  No ;  it  does  not  apply  to  the  members  of  this  committee. 
You  are  a  Congressman,  of  course,  and  I  stated  that  I  would  not  be 
misunderstood  in  making  the  suggestion.  What  I  say  is  that  the  bill 
is  unworkable  and  impractical  in  its  present  form. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  do  you  include  the  President  of  the  United 
States  in  your  insinuation  upon  politicians? 

Mr.  STARR.  Certainly  not.  I  didn't  know  the  President  of  the 
United  States  had  anything  to  do  with  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Would  you  include  Theodore  Roosevelt,  now  de- 
ceased, in  your  aspersions  upon  the  politicians  who  were  back  of  this 
idea  for  political  purposes? 

Mr.  STARR.  Well,  I  don't  know  that  it  will  be  possible  to  say  that 
any  public  character  or  politician,  a  man  who  holds  a  public  office 
as  the  result  of  popular  choice,  election,  considers  anything  except 
from  a  political  point  of  view,  or  that  that  point  of  view  is  included 
in  the  general  sum  of  the  basis  of  his  actions. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  think  that  point  of  view  is  a  sinister  point 
of  view,  and  solely  for  mercenary  and  selfish  purposes? 

Mr.  STARR.  Not  at  all.  That  a  thing  is  political  does  not  make  it 
sinister  or  mercenary. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  mean  political,  then,  in  the  favorable  sense 
and  not  in  the  unfavorable  sense? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  am  using  the  term  as  a  definition,  as  an  attempt  to 
determine  what  is  public  policy. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then  you  mean  political  in  the  favorable  sense,  not 
the  unfavorable  sense? 

Mr.  STARR.  Not  the  sinister  or  unfavorable  sense  at  all.  I  under- 
stand politics  to  be  in  its  essence  nothing  more  or  less  than  an  effort 
to  determine  what  public  opinion  is  and  the  giving  of  effect  to  it. 
That  is  my  understanding  of  the  word  "  politics."  A  successful 
politician  anticipates  public  opinion  and  expresses  it. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  am  afraid  that  the  gentleman's  statement  was  so 
broad  that  it  took  in  a  good  deal  more  than  that.  Will  you  just  read 
what  he  said  regarding  the  political  side  of  this  matter  \ 

The  reporter  read  the  record,  as  follows : 

*  *  *  It  has  already  been  staled  by  men  who  are  close  students  of  affairs 
and  of  social  philosophy  and  of  political  activity  that  this  bill  is  not  intended 
as  a  genuine  bill  to  help  anybody  except  a  few  politicians  who  wish  to  capitalize 
the  soldier  vote. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Do  you  think  that  Secretary  Franklin  K.  Lane,  who 
originated  this  plan,  did  it  for  no  good  purpose  for  the  soldier,  but 
simply  to  capitalize  the  soldier  vote? 

Mr.  STARR.  Certainly  not.  No  one  in  the  world  would  ever  say 
that. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Do  you  think  President  Wilson,  when  he  issued  his 
message  at  the  opening  of  this  Congress,  advocating  this  legislation  in 
the  strongest  terms — do  you  think  he  was  doing  that  simply  to  get  tin- 
soldier  vote? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  have  said  all  the  way  through  that  was  not  my 
opinion.  I  don't  think  anything  of  the  kind. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  But  the  gentleman  states  in  this  record  hero,  in  terms 
loud  and  clear,  that  men  who  are  students  of  government,  students  of 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  209 

> 

philosophy,  have  stated  that  those  who  were  behind  this  bill  were 
trying  to  capitalize  the  soldier  vote. 

Mr.  STARR.  I  have  heard  those  statements  made. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Then,  in  response  to  the  question  by  Judge  Raker,  who 
asked  you  the  name  of  one  man  who  had  said  that,  to  name  one  person 
to  whom  you  referred,  you  said  you  would  not  state  his  name,  and 
you  refused  to. 

Mr.  STARR.  I  have  so  stated. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Xow  you  are  satisfied  to  make  a  record  like  that  be- 
fore this  committee? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  am  willing  to  let  it  go  just  as  I  have  stated  it. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Well,  is  that  the  truth? 

Mr.  STARR.  It  is  the  truth  that  I  have  heard  tliose  discussions. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  it  is  the  truth  that  you  refuse  to  name  a  single 
one  who  ever  stated  that? 

Mr.  STARR.  It  is. 

Mi-.  FERRIS.  And  it  is  the  truth  that  you  think  that  the  men  who 
really  got  up  this  bill — you  now  state  that  you  think  they  have  no 
such  purpose  as  that? 

Mr.  STARR.  If  I  can  make  myself  understood — there  is  an  unex- 
pressed imputation  in  your  question  that  I  will  not  admit.  I  will 
say  to  you  that  I  have  heard  those  statements  made  in  general  dis- 
cussion by  groups  of  men  who  have  considered  all  of  these  questions. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Do  you  or  do  you  not  adopt  their  statement  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  have  expressly  repudiated  that;  but  that  is  not  my 
opinion. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  It  is  not  your  opinion  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  No.  I  have  repudiated  that  idea.  I  did  it  before  I 
said  anything  about  it. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Then  why  cumber  this  record  with  statements  of  men 
whose  names  you  refuse  to  give  and  whose  theories  you  refuse  to 
stand  for? 

Mr.  STARR.  Simply  because  I  wish  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  the 
very  title  of  the  bill  its  provisions  shows  to  a  thinking  man  that 
it  is  unworkable. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Well,  that  is  a  matter  you  are  arguing  there,  of 
course. 

Mr.  STARR.  It  is  unworkable  for  various  reasons. 

Mr.  RAKER.  May  I  ask  you  one  question  ?  Then  I  will  not  trouble 
you  any  further.  Do  you  remember  these  men  who  made  this  state- 
ment, these  philosophers? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  have  some  of  them  in  mind. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Let  me  finish  my  question — who  advocated  the  theory 
that  you  put  in  the  record  there  as  to  the  purpose  of  this  legisla- 
tion and  the  intent  of  those  advocating  it,  and  you  come  before  the 
committee  to  assist  the  committee  in  getting  proper  legislation,  and 
while  remembering  their  names  now,  knowing  them,  you  refuse  to 
give  their  names  to  the  committee?  Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  STARR.  Before  I  would  undertake  to  give  any  of  those  names 
to  the  committee  I  would  have  to  see  those  men  themselves  and  get 
their  permission  to  do  it.  They  are  men  occupying  fairly  good  posi- 
tions in  the  world.  They  occupy  responsible  positions,  some  of 
them,  and  I  am  not  going  to  put  their  names  in  here  to  be  the  target 
of  this  committee  without  their  consent. 


210  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  MATS.  What  was  your  exact  purpose  in  quoting  this  opinion? 

Mr.  STARR.  In  quoting  the  opinion?  The  object  of  my  making  the 
statement  was  to  show  that  there  is  a  fear  that  the  bill  is  unworkable ; 
that  the  very  title  of  it  and  its  provisions,  as  I  stated  a  moment  ago, 
on  close  analogy  in  comparison  with  the  history  of  past  legislation  in 
connection  with  the  same  general  subject,  shows  that  the  bill  is 
unworkable. 

Mr.  MAYS.  You  agree,  then  with  that  theory  that  it  is  unwork- 
able? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  agree  that  it  is  unworkable,  and  I  am  here  to  say  so. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Do  you  agree  with  these  opinions  you  have  just  ex- 
pressed ? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  am  not  here  to  agree,  and  I  do  not  agree  with  the 
opinion  that  it  is  intended  as  a  political  camouflage;  I  do  not  be- 
lieve that  for  a  minute. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Mr.  Starr,  all  those  men  that  you  refer  to,  do  you 
know  whether  they  will  appear  before  the  committee  or  not? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  don't  know.  That  contingency  has  never  developed. 
I  don't  know  what  their  view  would  be  about  coming  before  the  com- 
mittee and  making  their  statement. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Do  you  think  those  gentlemen  to  whom  you 
make  reference,  were  posted  on  the  subject? 

Mr.  STARR.  By  the  process  of  elimination  carried  far  enough,  that 
question  would,  perhaps,  identify  some  of  the  men.  I  will  say  thnt 
some  of  them  are  men  who  have  been  personally  engaged  in  con- 
sidering and  examining  this  very  subject  for  two  years.  There  have 
been  a  number  of  bills  introduced. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  it  your  opinion  that  the  plan  should  be  more 
extensive  and  take  in  everyone? 

Mr.  STARR.  My  opinion  is  that  the  plan  should  be  more  compre- 
hensive and  take  in  everyone.  At  the  close  of  the  Civil  War,  at  the 
close  of  the  Mexican  War,  the  Government  issued  land  warrants 
to  its  soldiers.  And  in  1862,  I  think  it  was,  Galusha  A.  Grow  of- 
fered the  homestead  and  preemption  bill.  After  every  Avar,  even 
in  the  times  of  the  Csesars,  there  were  attempts  made  to  gratify  the 
soldiers  who  had  served  the  country  in  the  field  by  giving  them 
grants  of  public  land,  which  was  the  available,  accessible,  ready 
means  of  rewarding  the  men  who  had  undertaken  the  services  to  pro- 
tect the  country  and  to  extend  its  power.  That  was  true  when  we  had 
those  enormous  areas  of  land  that  are  now  all  gone.  That  was  true 
after  the  Mexican  War.  I  don't  know  what  you  would  have  to  pay 
for  a  piece  of  Valentine  Scrip  now.  I  don't' belieA^e  you  could  find 
one.  except  perhaps  in  a  museum. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  was  an  absolute  gift  to  the  soldiers? 

Mr.  STARR.  That  was  absolute  gift  to  the  soldiers. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  A  voluntary  gift  on  the  part  of  the  Government 
without  any  requirements  on  the  part  of  the  soldier  other  than  the 
past  service  ( 

Mr.  STARK.  Certainly.  And  the  natural  result  of  that  was  that 
I  doubt  that  if  to-day  10  per  cent  of  the  families  of  the  men  who  re- 
ceived Government  warrants  for  land  as  soldier  claims  still  have 
any  interest  in  the  land  that  the  soldier  took.  I  lived  on  the  fron- 
tier mvself  for  a  number  of  years,  and  1  know  cases,  manv  of  them. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  211 

where  men  who  had  been  soldiers,  who  had  taken  homesteads  and 
taken  preemptions  and  sold  them  the  minute  they  got  their  title — 
disposed  of  them  for  what  they  could  get.  They  made  land  specu- 
lators of  those  men,  rather  than  settlers — farmers. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  referring  to  the  time  prior  to  the  passage 
of  the  homestead  act  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  am  referring  to  the  time  prior  to  the  passage  of  the 
homestead  act,  and  then  subsequent  to  the  homestead  act.  Of  course 
there  were  a  great  many,  absolutely  a  great  many  of  those  men  that 
settled  in  good  faith  on  that  land,  but  relatively  there  were  a  very 
small  number  of  them. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  want  to  keep  the  line  of  demarcation  between 
what  was  done  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  homestead  act  and  after- 
wards. Before  the  passage  of  the  homestead  act  there  was  a  volun- 
tary gift  made  to  these  soldiers. 

Mr.  STARR.  Yes,  sir;  soldier  scrip. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Without  any  requirements  on  the  part  of  the  Gov- 
ernment ? 

Mr.  STARR.  Absolutely.  But  the  same  general  principle,  develop- 
ment of  the  speculative  instinct,  followed  in  all  that  granting  that 
was  made. 

Xow,  the  second  point  that  I  want  to  cover  is  this:  That  in  order 
to — well,  before  I  go  on  with  that,  in  my  own  experience  as  a 
farmer.  I  have  had  some  light  thrown  on  the  probabilities  of  taking 
advantage  of  this  measure  by  soldiers  in  my  own  county.  Between 
1914  and  1917.  in  July,  they  took  over  2,000  men  out  of  my  county 
and  put  them  into  the  war  machine  in  one  way  or  another.  Many  of 
them  went  in  uniform,  but  boys  that  could  not  earn  75  cents  a  day 
stripping  corn  or  bugging  potatoes,  or  hoeing  weeds  went  up  to 
Bridgeport  and  Newcastle  and  other  places  and  got  $5  and  $6  a'day 
for  eight  hours'  work.  Xow,  they  have  not  come  back  yet.  They 
went  up  there  and  lived  in  the  atmosphere  of  the  moving  pict.urp<* 
and  the  bright  lights  and  the  joy  rides,  and  they  haven't  gonp  baolr  !-<s 
the  farm  yet,  and  they  are  not  going  back.  Xow,  most  of  the  men 
who  went  from  the  city  to  the  Army,  Jroung  men  with  city  training 
and  development,  are  not  going  to  the  farm ;  and  I  want  to  say  to  you 
that  more  than  half  of  the  men  who  went  from  the  farm  into  the 
Army,  unless  they  were  married  men  and  had  families  living  in  the 
country,  are  not  going  bnck  to  the  farm,  and  when  they  do  go,  they 
are  not  going  out  into  the  wilderness  to  take  cut-over  lands  and  de- 
velop them  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  farm. 

I  know  something  about  the  cut-over  land  business.  I  have 
friends  in  northern  Minnesota  who  went  up  there  into  the  cut-over 
land  district.  You  can't  clear  up  this  cut-over  land — speaking  about 
the  land  in  Tennessee  and  Kentucky — you  can't  clear  that  land  for  an 
average  of  $50  an  acre  and  make  it  fit  for  the  plow.  It  is  impos- 
sible. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  How  much  an  acre  did  you  say? 

Mr.  STARR.  $50  an  acre. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Do  you  know  that  to  be  a  fact? 

Mr.  STARR.  Well,  it  has  not  been  done  yet. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  It  has  been  done.  Thousands  of  acres  down  in  my 
country  have  boon  put  into  cultivation  for  a  whole  lot  less  than  that. 

Mr.  STARR.  Within  the  last  few  vears? 


212  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Yes,  sir.  And  people  from  the  Northern  States, 
Wisconsin,  Indiana,  and  West  Virginia,  have  done  it. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Do  you  know  that  Capt.  Connelly,  one  of  the  ex- 
plosive experts  in  the  Army,  has  offered  to  take  a  contract  of  a  million 
acres  of  cut-over  lands  and  clear  it  for  $10  an  acre  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  Well,  you  had  better  take  it  right  away,  because  it  cost 
me  $25  to  $30  an  acre  to  clear  up  land  on  the  Eastern  Shore  of  Mary- 
land before  the  war  begun. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  They  are  using  modern  methods  now,  using  T.  N.  T. 
to  blow  up  the  stumps. 

Mr.  STARR.  I  understand  that  in  large  production,  large  units. 
with  a  scientific,  trained  corps  of  men,  you  can  go  at  a  field  or  a. 
problem  of  that  kind  and  do  it  in  a  very  different  way  from  what 
the  man  does  who  hasn't  even  a  team  to  work  with,  not  even  capital 
to  buy  a  rope  that  he  can  pull  on. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  The  Government  is  going  to  do  that.  The  Govern- 
ment is  not  going  to  turn  these  fellows  out  with  a  hoe  and  a  shovel 
and  a  pick  to  clear  this  land  with. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Starr,  we  had  a  representative  of  the  State 
of  Tennessee  here  testifying  about  the  price  of  clearing  land  and 
also  a  representative  from  the  State  of  Michigan  on  the  clearing  of 
land,  and  that  is  in  the  record — what  did  you  say  it  cost  you  to  clear 
your  land? 

Mr.  STARR.  It  cost  me  $25  to  $30  an  acre  to  clear  lands  on  the 
eastern  shore  of  Maryland  in  1913. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  kind  of  timber? 

Mr.  STARR.  Pine  timber  that  had  been  cut  over,  and  the  second 
growth  come  on. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  was  the  stumpage  of  that  land?  What  did 
it  run  to  the  acre? 

Mr.  STARR.  What  do  you  want? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  mean  in  thousand  feet. 

Mr.  STARR.  Oh,  it  was  fit  for  fence  posts  and  firewood  only. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  many  thousand  feet  to  the  acre? 

Mr.  STARR.  We  never  measured  it  in  feet.  We  measured  it  in  cords. 
There  wasn't  any  saw  stuff  in  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  About  how  many  cords  to  the  acre? 

Mr.  STARR.  We  could  get  all  the  way  from  150  to  200  cords  of 
wood. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  many  feet  are  there  in  a  cord  of  wood? 

Mr.  STARR.  128  cubic  feet,  if  I  remember  my  arithmetic  correctly. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  About  150  cords  to  the  acre? 

Mr.  MAYS.  Did  it  cost  you  $25  in  addition  to  what  you  got  for  the 
wood? 

Mr.  STARR.  Yes,  the  wood  was  only  worth  $1.25  a  cord.  I  expect 
we  could  get  $8  a  cord  for  it  now. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Well,  if  you  were  clearing  it  now,  you  would  come  out 
all  right,  wouldn't  you? 

Mr.  STARR.  Well,  I  don't  know.  There  won't  anybody  clear  it  for 
the  wood.  They  never  used  to. 

Now.  there  is  another  feature  here  that  I  think  is  very  important, 
and  that  is  the,  possibility  of  alienation.  If  you  allow  this  land  to 
be  alienated  bv  the  grantees,  the  title  to  the  land,  as  distinguished 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  213 

from  improvements  which  the  grantee  may  make,  you  are  not  going 
to  get  a  great  deal  of  improvement,  and  these  men  are  not  going  to 
stay.  If  you  will  make  it  so  that  the  land  can  not  be  alienated  at 
all — I  know  what  your  provision  in  the  bill  is;  you  hare  a  10-year 
provision,  and  then  you  have  got  to  have  the  consent  of  the  Secre- 
tary and  all  that,  but  those  are  matters  like  the  usury  laws.  You 
have  jrot  all  the  laws  against  usury  that  you  want,  but  you  have 
never  been  able  to  stop  usury,  and  you  can  make  all  the  laws  you 
want  to  against  alienation,  and  you  will  never  be  able  to  stop  alien- 
ation in  one  way  or  another.  Now,  my  proposition  is  that  by 
making  it  unalienable,  you  will  secure  a  class  of  population  that  is 
genuinely  and  honestly  looking  for  homes  in  this  country. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Won't  you  just  make  your  suggestion  right  there? 

Mr.  STARR.  My  suggestion  is  that  it  shall  be  inalienable  in  any 
event;  that  the  improvements  can  be  transferred;  that  on  the  man's 
death,  for  example,  or  if  he  sees  a  better  opportunity  in  some  other 
part  of  the  world  and  finds  somebody  that  is  willing  to  buy  his  im- 
provements, that  he  shall  have  the  right  to  sell  his  improvements; 
that  the  only  title  to. the  land  itself  must  be  use  and  occupancy, 
That  is  my  opinion,  and  in  that  way  you  will  get  permanent  settle- 
ment. You  will  get  men  really  looking  for  a  home. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  approve  of  this  restriction  as  far  as  it  goes, 
but  you  don't  think  it  goes  far  enough  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  As  far  as  it  goes,  but  it  doesn't  go  far  enough. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Well,  Mr.  Starr,  if  that  be  true,  then  the  title  would 
always  remain  in  the  Government,  and  it  would  be  nontaxable. 

Mr.  STARR.  Xo ;  it  would  not  be  nontaxable. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  You  know  you  can't  tax  a  homestead  unless  title 
passes. 

Mr.  STARR.  Yes ;  I  understand ;  but  you  are  making  a  law  here,  and 
I  think  that  it  is  a  splendid  opportunity  to  make  a  magnificent,  grand 
precedent,  and  that  is,  that  the  user  of  that  land  shall  pay  to  the 
Government,  in  lieu  of  taxes,  the  rental  value  of  the  land  unimproved. 
Then  3Tou  will  have  the  whole  question  solved. 

Now.  to  go  further,  a  gentleman  a  few  weeks  ago  at  a  conference 
here  in  the  city  made  a  demand  for  immediate  consideration  by  the 
body  of  a  proposition  to  demand  of  Congress  an  appropriation  of 
$100,000.000  for  development  purposes  in  a  western  State,  a  western 
region  in  which  he  said  now  the  land  was  occupied  by  owls,  jack 
rabbits,  and  rattlesnakes,  but  with  $100.000,000  they  could  provide 
homes  for  a  certain  number  of  soldiers.  Now.  I  have  a  very  different 
theory.  The  German  Empire,  with  70,000,000  people,  occupied  a 
territory  of  less  than  three-quarters  the  size  of  the  State  of  Texas. 
There  is  land  enough  east  of  the  Mississippi  River  and  north  of  the 
Ohio  to  support  all  of  the  present  population  of  the  United  States 
and  as  much  more;  and  here,  instead  of  appropriating  millions  and 
millions  and  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  to  go  out  on  land  that  a 
thousand  acres  of  it  won't  support  a  jack  rabbit,  you  would  simply 
apply  a  revenue  proposition  to  the  land  that  is  already  held  out  of 
use  in  this  country  by  private  ownership,  instead  of  spending  that 
enormous  amount  of  money  continuously  for  what  you  get  out  of  it, 
you  will  have  built  up  your  country  and  you  will  get  $2,000.000.000 
of  annual  revenue. 


214  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  enough  idle  land  in  the  sections  you  refer 
to  to  put  in  operation  your  plan  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  Yes,  sir;  most  undoubtedly  there  is.  There  is  idle 
land  in  Massachusetts;  there  is  idle  land  in  Rhode  Island — I  have 
been  offered  lands  within  15  miles  of  the  city  of  Providence,  R.  I.,  for 
$7  an  acre.  That  was  several  years  ago.  I  don't  know  what  the  price 
is  now. 

Mr.  BAER.  There  is  land  in  New  Jersey  that  I  wouldn't  trade  for 
land  out  in  Arizona,  at  all. 

Mr.  STARR.  That  is  true,  undoubtedly.  Then  there  is  one  thing 
about  it,  our  soil  survey  system  has  developed  a  wonderful  knowledge 
with  reference  to  the  character  of  our  land.  There  are  more  dif- 
ferent varieties  of  soil,  take  it  in  the  State  of  Maryland  alone,  there 
are  more  different  varieties  of  soil  in  the  State  of  Maryland  than 
there  are  almost  in  the  whole  continent  of  Europe,  lying  right 
close  together.  Now,  some  of  that  land  is  very  valuable,  and  some 
of  it  is  not  worth  fencing.  And  as  Mr.  Baer  says,  I  know  of  land 
«i  Arizona,  I  know  of  land  in  Idaho — I  have  ridden  over  thousands 
of  acres  of  it — that  would  not  support  a  jack  rabbit.  Nothing  but 
sagebrush  on  it,  but  with  water  on  it  it  makes  wonderful  land.  But 
why  go  out  there  and  spend  that  money  and  anticipate  develop- 
ments when  you  are  going  right  by  the  finest  land  that  ever  existed  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  were  the  States  you  have  in  mind  in  the 
East  here? 

Mr.  STARR.  There  is  land  in  Ohio;  there  is  land  in  Pennsylvania; 
there  is  land  in  Indiana ;  there  is  land  in  any  of  these  States  that 
is  unused. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  What  is  your  suggestion?  What  amendments 
would  you  offer  to  this  bill  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  would  strike  out  the  title  of  the  bill  and  say,  "  To 
provide  employment  and  rural  homes  for  those  who  desire  to  take 
advantage  of  the  opportunity." 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  And  let  it  apply  to  anyone? 

Mr.  STARR.  Make  it  apply  to  anybody.  Then  I  would  put  it  over 
here — I  would  say,  "  This  land  shall  be  inalienable  on  the  conditions 
indicated  of  a  site  value  payment  by  the  tenants  to  the  Government 
in  lieu  of  taxes." 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  That  is  all  I  want  to  know. 

Mr.  MAYS.  With  those  amendments,  would  you  be  for  the  bill  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  would  be  for  that  principle  in  any  kind  of  a  bill. 

Mr.  MAYS.  But  for  this  particular  bill?  Would  you  be  for  this 
particular  bill? 

Mr.  STARR.  For  this  particular  bill?  If  you  will  amend  it  with 
those  two  propositions,  I  will  be  glad  to  support  it. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  May  I  ask  this  question?  Do  you  own  your  land? 
You  have  fee-simple  title  to  your  land? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  have  fee-simple  title  to  my  land.  I  sold  it  only  a 
few  months  ago. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Don't  you  think  the  soldier  ought  to  have  at  some 
time  a  fee-simple  title  to  his  land  for  his  children? 

Mr.  STAKI:.  All  that  a  fee-simple  title  gives  to  a  man  is  permanent 
right  of  possession.  That  is  all.  and  as  long  as  the  Government 
guarantees  to  him  permanent  right  of  possession  he  doesn't  need 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  215 

a  fee-simple  title.  All  the  addition  he  gets  with  a  fee-simple  title 
is  the  capacity  to  be  a  speculator.  And  let  me  say  this  right  on  this 
line,  the  money  that  has  been  made  or  created  by  agriculture  in  the 
last  50  years  has  not  been  made  as  a  result  of  cultivating  the  soil; 
it  has  been  made  by  land  speculators  and  not  by  farmers. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  How  much  did  you  make  out  of  your  place  when 
you  sold  it? 

Mr.  STARE.  I  bought  it  at  X  and  sold  it  for  XX. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  You  object  to  speculation? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  object  to  speculation. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  You  made  100  per  cent? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  made  100  per  cent;  and  as  long  as  you  allow  that  law 
to  exist — as  long  as  you  make  it  necessary  for  me  to  have  teeth  and 
claws,  I  am  going  to  use  teeth  and  claws.  I  object  to  teeth  and  claws 
on  my  own  part  or  anybody  else's  part. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Xow,  you  have  stated  two  reasons  why  the  law 
was  unworkable.  First,  the  alienation  feature  and  then  the  feature 
of  making  it  apply  only  to  soldiers. 

Mr.  STARR.  Yes,  sir.  With  those  things  removed,  I  will  support 
the  bill. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Knowing  that  everything  must  have  a  beginning, 
would  you  have  any  objections  to  setting  a  good  example  regarding 
the  tooth-and-claw  proposition? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  am  willing  to  go  in  with  any  community  and  do  it. 

Mr.  MAYS.  And  take  out  your  teeth? 

Mr.  STARR.  Take  away  that  kind  of  tooth.  But  you  can't  take  it 
away  from  one  without  you  take  it  away  from  all. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Mr.  Starr,  don't  you  recognize  the  necessity  for  and 
the  great  stimulus  and  the  great  aid  to  citizenship  that  thie  right  to 
own  one's  own  home  gives?  Don't  you  recognize  that  living  prin- 
ciple in  the  country  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  recognize  this,  that  the  basis  of  all  government  and 
all  that  government  exists  for  is  to  act  as  a  big  policeman  to  keep 
some  man  off  from  mv  back  and  to  keep  me  off  of  his  back  in  case 
I  have  predatory  instincts.  That  is  all  government  is  for.  Xow, 
then,  when  government  gives  to  me  all  that  I  can  ask  for — the  peace- 
able, permanent  possession  of  my  opportunity  to  work  out  my  own 
destiny — I  am  satisfied.  That  is  all  that  anybody  can  get. 

Mr/ FERRIS.  Then  you  would  have  the  Government  retain  title  to 
all  the  land? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  would. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  If  you  sat  here  as  chairman  or  an  individual  member 
of  this  committee  and  any  bill  came  up  allowing  an  acre  of  land  to 
pass  from  the  Federal  GoVernment — to  pass  title  to  the  individual — 
you  would  oppose  it  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  Why,  I  would  not  want  to  say  that.  "Any  bill "  is  a 
very  broad  proposition. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  But  you  have  said  that,  practically.  You  say  that 
the  trouble  with  this  bill  is,  Xo.  1,  that  you  oppose  it  because  it  per- 
mits alienation.  In  other  words,  you  want  the  title  held  in  the  Fed- 
eral Government  and  make  a  tenant  of  the  soldier.  Isn't  that  it? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  oppose  the  bill  on  one  ground,  that  it  allows  alien- 
ation and  offers  an  opportunity  for  land  speculation 


216  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  FERRIS  (interposing).  Let  me  get  down  to  that  question  again, 
without  getting  off  of  it.  This  is  very  important.  The  Govern- 
ment has  some  300,000,000  acres  of  land  in  the  United  States  and 
something  over  300,000,000  acres  in  Alaska  still  the  property  of  the 
Government,  and  we  have  about  70,000,000  acres  of  coal  land,  and 
about  370,000,000  acres  of  forest  reserve,  and  3,000,000  acres  of  phos- 
phate land — something  like  that.  Xo\v,  you  wouldn't,  under  your 
theory,  permit  any  of  that  to  go  into  private  ownership  and  stimulate 
private  development  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  Now,  you  are  hitting  a  very  broad  question  there,  but 
I  will  say  negatively  no.  The  principle  is  wrong. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  think  the  principle  of  letting  it  pass  from  the 
Government  is  wrong? 

Mr.  STARR.  The  principle  of  allowing  natural  opportunity  to  pass 
put  of  the  control  of  the  social  body  into  the  hands  of  privateers 
is  wrong,  fundamentally. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  you  would  make  that  true  as  to  homesteads? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  make  that  true  regardless.  Now  the  fact  of  the 
matter  is  here,  gentlemen,  there  are  only  two  things  that  can  be 
monopolized  on  the  surface  of  this  earth — just  two,  and  one  of  them 
is  natural  opportunity  and  the  other  is  the  key  to  natural  oppor- 
tunity, and  we  call  it  credit.  The  landless  man,  the  disinherited 
man,  who  seeks  standing  ground  for  the  exercise  of  his  abilities 
and  capacities,  to-day  in  order  to  get  it  has  got  to  go  and  make  terms 
with  the  monopolist. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Now,  the  second  reason  for  your  vigorous  opposi- 
tion to  this  bill  here  that  you  portrayed  in  the  last  few  minutes  is 
that  it  does  not  include  everybody? 

Mr.  STARR.  It  does  not  include  everybody.  That  is  my  first  con- 
tention. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  So  those  two  objections  are  your  main  objections  to 
the  bill? 

Mr.  STARR.  Those  are  my  main  objections. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  So  if  we  fix  it  so  that  the  land  would  not  pass  from 
the  Government  and  allow  the  leases  to  be  sold ;  and  second,  that  you 
would  make  it  apply  to  everybody,  every  man  who  did  not  serve, 
as  well  as  he  that  did  serve,  then  you  would  be  in  favor  of  them  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  Giving  preference  to  soldiers,  where  conflicting  claims 
arise,  or  if  you  wrant  to  make  it  two  or  three  years,  give  them  that 
preference.  But  I  maintain  that  the  man  who  is  supporting  a 
family  in  this  country  now  or  during  the  war,  under  the  pressure 
of  conditions  as  they  were  then,  made  sacrifices  that  should  be  recog- 
nized, if  anybody  is  going  to  be  recognized. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  The  general  homestead  law  holds  out  to  him  the 
right  to  come  and  take  any  of  this  land  any  day  he  wants  to. 

Mr.  STARR.  He  can't  take  land  held  in  private  control,  and  the 
land  you  offer  him  under  the  homestead  law  to-day  he  can't  use. 
You  might  as  well  say  that  there  are  magnificent  ore  deposits  on 
the  moon.  Everybody  can  go  and  establish  a  mine  there.  It  can't 
be  done.  It  is  as  impossible  to  do  the  one  as  it  is  to  do  the  other. 

Mi'.  HKKS.MAX.  Will  you  point  out  the  men  that  stayed  at  home 
and  made  the  sacrifices  that  the  soldiers  did?  Will  you  find  out  the 
class  of  men  that  stayed  at.  home  and  made  the  same  kind  of  sacri- 
fices that  the  soldiers  did? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  217 

Mr.  STARK.  JNo  one  made  the  same  sacrifices. 

Mr.  HERSMAX.  Will  you  point  out  the  man  that  stayed  at  home  and 
made  sacrifices? 

Mr.  STARR.  They  did  sacrifice. 

Mr.  HERSMAX.  What  class  of  men  made  sacrifices  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  Well,  the  ironworkers,  for  example,  as  a  type. 

Mr.  HERSMAX.  When  they  got  $8  or  $10  or  $12  a  day  where  they 
were  getting  $4  before. 

Mr.  STARR.  Some  of  them  didn't  get  $8  or  $10  or  $12  a  day ;  but 
even  if  they  did  get  $8  or  $10  or  $12  a  day,  they  had  to  pay  double 
for  everything  they  got  in  proportion.  I  don't  like  to  hear  the  sug- 
gestion made  that  because  these  men  had  such  wages  that  they 
haven't  made  serious  sacrifices.  A  man's  wages  are  not  what  he  gets 
in  his  pocket,  but  it  is  what  he  has  left  after  he  has  paid  the  bills. 

Mr.  HERSMAX.  You  think  that  if  I  stayed  at  home  and  bought  the 
best  investment  on  earth — Government  Liberty  bonds — that  I  made 
any  sacrifice?  Do  you  think  that  the  man  who  stayed  at  home  and 
bought  Liberty  bonds  made  any  sacrifices? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  know  some  of  the  school-teachers  in  the  town  where 
I  live  made  sacrifices  when  they  bought  Liberty  bonds. 

Mr.  HERSMAX.  It  was  the  best  investment  they  ever  made.  It 
taught  them  thrift. 

Mr.  STARR.  They  didn't  make  their  investments;  they  were  made 
for  them  by  their  bosses. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  Have  you  made  any  estimate  of  how  much  it 
would  cost  to  consummate*Vour  plan? 

Mr.  STARR.  Why,  I  made  a  rough  estimate  yesterday  when  the  gen- 
tleman from  Texas  was  talking  about  his  plan.  His  plan  involved  a 
possible  direct  outlay  of  $20,000,000.  He  made  me  think  of  a  pre- 
vious gentleman  from  Texas  who,  some  years  ago,  asked :  "  What 
are  we  here  for?  "  However,  that  is  past. 

The  plan  which  I  suggest  here,  so  far  as  Government  expenditure 
is  concerned,  would  not  involve  any  more  money  than  the  plan  that 
you  have  in  the  bill. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  To  consummate  it? 

Mr.  STARR.  To  consummate  it. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  Xow,  how  do  you  arrive  at  that? 

Mr.  STARR.  Because  the  changes  in  the  bill — the  changes  which  I 
suggest  would  do  it. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  Would  you  secure  all  this  land  which  you  have 
referred  to  at  that  price  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  Yes :  and  more,  too.  You  have  in  this  bill  a  provision 
for  acquiring  land.  Now,  the  proposed  changes  which  I  offer  will 
make  no  change  whatsoever  in  the  expense  to  be  attached  to  the 
acquisition  of  land  or  to  its  administration.  You  are  providing  a 
certain  possible  expenditure  by  this  bill ;  my  bill  does  not  affect  that 
at  all,  or  my  proposition  does  not  affect  that  at  all,  one  way  or  the 
other. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  What  would  you  pay  an  acre  for  the  land  that  you 
propose  to  secure  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  Why,  I  would  pay  what  it  is  worth  in  the  market.  I 
would  pay  what  it  is  actually  worth,  as  estimated  by  what  it  has  been 
paying  iii  the  way  of  taxes.' 


218  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  you  would  get  that,  then,  on  the  single-tax 
plan? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  would  apply  the  single-tax  plan  to  it.  I  doubt  if  you 
could  get  it  all  that  Avay. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  would  it  cost,  though,  at  the  market  price, 
the  way  land  is  ordinarily  obtained  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  It  would  not  cost  the  Government  any  more  with  that 
bill  than  it  does  under  this,  because  the  Government  holds  title  to  all 
the  land,  and  the  land  is  always  good  for  its  cost. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  mean  lands  here  in  the  East  that  you  refer  to. 
What  would  it  cost  per  acre  to  secure  that  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  Some  of  it  can  be  secured  for  $8,  or  $10,  or  $12,  or  $15, 
and  $25 — I  imagine  $25  an  acre  would  be  the  limit. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  would  be  the  average? 

Mr.  STARR.  Well,  say,  $15  an  acre — $16. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  many  acres  would  you  propose  to  secure? 

Mr.  STARR.  For  each  individual  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  For  the  entire  plan? 

Mr.  STARR.  Your  entire  plan?  You  don't  know  any  more  about 
what  that  is  in  this  bill  than  I  know  p. bout  mine. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  mean  how  many  acres  do  you  propose  to  ac- 
quire ? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  propose  to  acquire  enough  acres  to  give  the  man  who 
wants  an  opportunity  to  support  himself  on  the  land — to  give  him 
that  opportunity. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  would  that  aggregate? 

Mr.  STARR.  It  depends  on  how  many  soldiers  will  take  advantage 
of  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  embracing  every  one? 

Mr.  STARR.  It  depends  on  how  many  people  take  advantage  of  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  many  do  vou  think  would  take  advantage 
of  it? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  imagine  if  this  bill  were  now  ready  to  put  into  op- 
eration, in  workable  form,  there  might  be  between  now  and  next 
March  1,000,000  applications  for  land. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  A  million  applications? 

Mr.  STARR.  Yes;  and  the  possibility  of  anywhere  from  60  to  80 
acres  average  for  individuals. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is,  60,000.000  acres? 

Mr.  STARR.  Sixty  million  acres;  yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  of  course,  the  plan  is  not  going  to  stop 
within  one  year,  nor  would  your  plan. 

Mr.  STARR.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  many  acres  would  you  ultimately  have  to 
secure  in  order  to  consummate  your  plan? 

Mr.  STARR.  You  would  have  to  secure  sufficient  acreage  to  remove 
from  the  congested  centers  of  population  enough  or  a  sufficient  num- 
ber of  those  who  inhabit  the  congested  centers  of  population  to  raise 
tho  level  of  wages  in  the  city  to  the  equal  of  what  they  could  make 
living  on  the  farm. 

The  CHAIRMAN,  llnw  much  would  that  be?  Could  you  give  the 
concrete  figures? 

Mr.  STARR.  The  average,  labor  turnover  in  this  country  amounts  to 
about — before  the  war,  in  normal  conditions — conditions  have  been 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  219 

abnormal  since  and  are  abnormal  now,  but  they  are  going  the  other 
way — but  in  normal  times  and  normal  conditions  there  was  about 
20  per  cent  of  the  available  labor  supply  of  the  country  continually 
idle — not  the  same  individuals  by  any  means,  but  in  the  aggregate 
about  20  per  cent. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  many  would  that  be  in  number  that  you  pro- 
pose to  take  care  of? 

Mr.  STARR.  There  are  120 — counting  out  the  women,  there  are 
supposed  to  be  18,000,000  to  20,000,000  of  wage  workers  in  the  country 
all  the  time  available  for  wage  purposes.  Now  5  per  cent  of  that — 
10  per  cent  of  that  will  accommodate  the  overflow. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  2,000,000. 

Mr.  STARR.  Two  million;  yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then  you  would  need  2,000,000  farms? 

Mr.  STARR.  You  would  need  2,000,000  farms.  You  have  got 
6.000,000  farms  now  and  you  would  need  2,000.000  more  farms. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  w'ould  each  farm  cost? 

Mr.  STARR.  Each  farm  ought  to  cost,  say,  at  60  acres  to  the  farm, 
which  is  a  modest  estimate,  60  acres  to  the  farm — say,  60  acres. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  About  $1,000  each? 

Mr.  STARR.  At  $1,000  apiece  it  would  be  about  $2,000,000,000. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  if  we  could  not  secure  enough  appropriation 
at  the  start  to  consummate  your  plan  you  would  give  the  preference 
right  to  the  soldier  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  On  those  lands? 

Mr.  STARR.  Yes;  I  would. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  you  believe  that  if  only  a  limited  appropria- 
tion could  be  secured  by  Congress  for  this  purpose  that  the  soldier 
should  have  the  preference  right  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  Certainly.  I  would  like  to  emphasize  the  suggestion 
made  by  Mr.  Garner  yesterday,  the  gentleman  from  Texas — 

The  CHAIRMAN  (interposing).  That  is  what  we  are  trying  to  do 
under  this  bill. 

Mr.  STARR.  Before  undertaking  a  wholesale  program  on  the  basis 
of  this  bill,  if  you  will  experiment,  try  it  out,  try  it  on  the  dog,  if 
you  are  going  to  get  men  and  offer  them  lands,  cut-over  lands,  swamp 
lands,  and  arid  lands,  you  have  got  to  find  out  how  many  of  them 
are  going  to  go  there. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  really  in  favor  of  this  bill,  as  far  as  it 
goes? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  principle  of  this  bill  and  have 
been  in  favor  of  the  principle,  this  principle,  in  all  of  the  bills  that 
have  been  introduced. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Have  you  got  any  other  suggestions  to  make  other 
than  to  make  it  nonalienable  and  also  make  it  apply  to  everybody  ? 

Mr.  STARR.  Those  are  the  vital  suggestions,  'those  are  the  im- 
portant features. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  haven't  anything  else? 

Mr.  STARR.  Now,  this  volunteer— I  have  taken  up  more  time  than 
I  intended  by  a  long  ways  already. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then,  Mr.  Starr,  your  criticism  upon  the  prodigal 
and  lavish  donation  of  land  prior  to  the  Civil  War — 


220  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  STARR  (interposing).  I  am  not  criticizing  that  at  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  agree  with  you  in  your  criticism,  and  we  are 
trying  to  correct  the  very  mistakes  that  were  made  at  that  time. 

Mr.  STARR.  Certainly.  Now,  those  lands  were  given  20  years  be- 
fore the  philosophy  that  I  am  preaching  was  formulated.  We  were 
living  in  a  stone  age. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  did  make  lavish  donations  of  these  lands  prior 
to  the  Civil  War,  and  did  not  require  in  many  cases  settlement  and 
cultivation,  and  it  did  lead  to  land  speculation,  and  that  is  the  very 
thing  we  are  trying  to  avoid  under  this  bill. 

Mr.  STARR.  I  think  you  are  right  about  that.  Xow,  I  will  be 
very  glad  if  I  can  answer  any  other  questions.  I  want  to  say 
to  you,  gentlemen,  if  I  can  without  being  misunderstood,  that 
I  have  absolutely  no  interest  in  this  bill  personally,  for  my  own 
benefit,  of  any  kind.  I  have  been  a  student  of  these  questions  for  a 
great  many  years.  No  man  that  ever  wore  the  single-tax  button  has 
not  been  a  student  of  these  things,  and  we  realize,  I  think,  all  of  us, 
that  the  very  fundamental  question  is  opportunity,  opportunity, 
opportunity.  This  America  meant  opportunity  50  years  ago,  and 
that  is  what  made  it  possible  for  our  population  to  grow  as  it  has. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Mr.  Starr,  you  have  had  a  full,  free  hearing, 
haven't  you  ?  You  have  said  everything  you  wanted  to  and  have  had 
a  very  fair  hearing? 

Mr.  STARR.  I  thank  you,  yes. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  WTe  just  wanted  that  to  go  into  the  record.  There 
has  been  some  complaint  about  that. 

Mr.  STARR.  I  appreciate  that.  Now,  there  is  one  thing  I  do  want 
to  say,  when  you  call  my  attention  to  that.  I  am  informed  that 
there  was  a  representative  of  the  National  Grange  before  this  body, 
a  Dr.  Atkeson,  concerning  whose  testimony  there  has  been  some 
confusion  of  one  kind  or  another.  Now,  I  know  Dr.  Atkeson;  I 
have  known  him  for  years;  but  I  think  Dr.  Atkeson  and  the  people 
he  represents  take  a  very  wrong  attitude  and  an  untruthful  attitude — 
I  don't  mean  intentionally  but  one  that  is  not  sound — when  he 
objects  to  this  bill  or  any  bill  of  this  kind  on  the  ground  of  the  fear 
of  competition  with  the  already  established  farmers. 

There  is  absolutely  no  basis  for  that.  It  is  possible  there  may  be 
some  one  or  two  benighted  individuals  who  are  farming  somewhere 
and  think  they  have  got  a  monopoly  on  some  special  crop  and  don't 
want  anybody  else  to  get  into  the  business,  but  that  is  not  the  atti- 
tude of  the  farmer  of  this  country.  I  can  say  to  you  without  pre- 
sumption and  without  arrogance  that  I  believe  that  the  one  vast, 
undefiled  reservoir  of  idealism  still  left  in  this  country  is  right  in 
the  heart  of  the  American  farmer,  and  if  there  is  a  body  in  the 
country  that  wants  the  whole  country  to  prosper,  it  is  the  farmer; 
if  there  is  anyone  who  wants  to  see  justice  done  at  all,  it  is  the 
farmer.  He  has  been  the  victim  too  long  of  discriminations  of 
various  kinds  not  to  want  to  see  justice  done  to  all,  because  when 
that  is  done  his  condition  will  be  immensely  better  than  it  is. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  thank  you  very  much  for  your  statement  Mr. 
Starr. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Fearful  that  there  might  be  some  misunderstanding 
during  the  great  debate  in  Congress  when  the  Mexican  War  was 


HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS.  221 

under  consideration,  and  to  show  how  great  men  can  be  deceived 
about  what  the  country  has  in  store  for  them,  these  are  the  words 
of  Daniel  Webster  in  the  debate  at  that  time : 

What  do  we  want  of  that  vast  and  worthless  area,  that  region  of  savages 
and  wild  beasts,  of  deserts,  of  shifting  sands,  whirling  winds,  dust,  cactus, 
and  prairie  dogs?  To  what  use  could  we  ever  hope  to  put  those  great  deserts 
and  those  endless  mountain  ranges,  impenetrable  and  covered  to  their  very 
base  with  eternal  snow?  What  can  we  ever  do  with  the  western  coast,  a  coast 
of  3,000  miles,  rockbound,  cheerless,  and  uninviting? 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  just  a  word.  We  have  one  man  here  that 
represents  the  farmers,  who  doesn't  want  this  bill  to  go  through, 
because  the  farmers  fear  competition.  Here  we  have  another  man 
who  is  a  witness  here  and  has  just  taken  his  seat,  who  is  dead  against 
tli is  bill  because  it  doesn't  include  everybody  giving  the  individual 
the  same  advantage  that  the  soldier  has.  Here  we  have  a  great 
statesman  saying  of  the  entire  West  that  no  one  would  look  at  that 
land ;  that  it'could  not  be  used  for  anything. 

I  merely  offer  this  to  show  that  from  a  variety  of  opinions 
this  committee  has  got  to  get  down  to  business  on  this  bill  and  take 
it  up  section  by  section,  paragraph  by  paragraph,  and  take  some 
affirmative  action  on  it.  Bringing  that  up  to  the  point  of  what  you 
want  to  do,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  very  greatly  hope  that  it  will  be  your 
opinion  and  the  opinion  of  the  committee  that  hereafter  wh'en  men 
come  in  here  to  assail  this  bill,  and  who  are  objecting  to  and  opposing 
this  bill,  that  they  bring  to  us  some  specific  amendment  that  they 
are  in  favor  of  it,  and  offer  it  and  speak  to  that,  and  not  try  to 
change  the  name  of  Arkansas  and  paint  the  sky  blue  and  change 
the  course  of  the  stars  and  the  revolutions  of  the  earth,  and  inject 
all  these  wild  theories  into  the  question.  The  conduct  of  certain  of 
our  citizenship  within  the  last  two  or  three  days  has  been  such 
that  there  is  no  need  of  anybody  with  a  very  good  temper  to  hear  these 
theoretical  schemes  that  have  no  place  here  and  can  not  be  worked 
out  here  and  are  not  in  the  jurisdiction  of  this  committee  to  develop. 
I  merely  throw  that  in  for  what  it  is  worth. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think,  Mr.  Ferris,  that  we  got  some  very  valu- 
able suggestions  from  the  last  witness.  I  think  that  he  demonstrated 
that  lie  was  in  favor  of  our  plan,  as  far  as  it  went,  and  that  it  did 
not  go  far  enough.  I  think  that  in  some  particulars  he  was  a  very 
helpful  witness.  He  showed  what  could  be  done  in  these  Eastern 
States  and  these  Northern  States-  His  objection  was  to  the  limited 
operation  of  the  bill. 

Now,  as  to  your  statement  about  Daniel  Webster,  it  is  very  help- 
ful. I  used  that  once  and  was  called  to  account  for  it  by  a  historian 
at  one  time.  I  know  it  is  currently  published  from  time  to  time  that 
Webster  did  say  that,  but  it  has  been  denied,  but  Benton  is  reported 
to  have  made  a  statement  but  he  afterwards  changed  his  viewpoint, 
because  he  became  the  greatest  advocate  of  the  development  of  the 
West.  He  is  reported  to  have  said : 

Let  the  statue  of  the  fabled  god  Terminus  be  erected  on  the  summit  of  the 
Rocky  Mountains  to  mark  the  western  boundary  of  the  Republic,  and  never  to 
be  thrown  down. 

Mr.  BAER.  Mr.  Chairman,  while  I  don't  want  to  express  my  own 
opinion,  it  is  the  opinion  of  a  sergeant  by  the  name  of  John  Kep- 
ler, who  is  at  Gen.  Pershing's  headquarters  in  the  Intelligence  Di- 


222  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

vision — he  is  now  connected  with  a  soldier's  paper  that  has  some 
50,000  circulation.  He  called  on  me  yesterday  and  he  confirmed  the 
idea  that  the  land  should  be  open  to  everybody,  and  this  is  his  argu- 
ment: That  not  over  20  per  cent  will  take  advantage  of  this  land. 

That  is  the  conclusion  that  is  practically  reached  here  by  the  figures 
of  Mr.  Lane  and  different  ones.  Therefore  80  per  cent  of  the  peo- 
ple, or  the  soldier  boys  themselves,  will  stay  in  the  cities.  Now,  if 
you  open  this  land  to  everybody,  to  everybody  including  the  foreign- 
ers and  those  Austrians,  Germans,  and  Italian  people  who  would 
really  go  out  and  work  the  land,  then  that  will  open  up  four  times  as 
much  opportunity  and  advantages  in  the  cities  because  more  people 
leave  the  cities  to  go  to  the  country,  and  the  cities  is  where  80  per 
cent — that  is  where  the  real  help  will  be  done  for  the  soldier.  I  asked 
him  if  he  didn't  think  that  if  we  opened  this  up  for  three  years  ex- 
clusively for  soldiers,  and  then  if  they  didn't  settle  it  fast  enough, 
to  open  it  up  to  the  public  at  large,  if  he  would  be  satisfied.  He 
thought  at  first  that  the  soldier  should  have  it  all,  but  he  said  he 
would  be  satisfied  with  that. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Twenty  per  cent  would  exhaust  the  opportunities, 
would  it  not? 

Mr.  BAER.  Twenty  per  cent  will  go  on  the  farms  anyway. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Did  your  friend  realize  that  this  would  only  take 
care  of  2  per  cent  of  the  soldiers  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  were  you  one  of  the  witnesses?  How  much 
time  do  you  want? 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  About  10  minutes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Will  you  state  to  the  committee  your  name  and 
occupation  ? 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  CARL  BRANNTN,  SECRETARY  OF  THE 
FARMERS'  SINGLE  TAX  LEAGUE. 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  I  am  secretary  of  the  Farmers'  Single  Tax  League. 
I  just  want  to  take  a  few  minutes  to  bring  to  the  committee's  at- 
tention some  points  that  Mr.  Starr  did  not  fully  develop — that  is, 
arguments  in  substantiation  of  his  position  that  this  bill  should 
contain  some  provision  for  the  taxation  of  land  values  to  prevent 
land  speculation,  and  that  it  is  very  inadvisable  to  have  land  let  out 
to  soldiers  and  sailors  on  a  fee  simple  basis. 

In  the  first  place,  I  desire  to  submit  some  quotations  from  different 
experts  and  documents.  Here  is  a  report  of  the  California  Com- 
mission on  Immigration  and  Housing,  discussing  the  situation  of 
large  land  holdings  in  southern  California.  There  is  just  a  para- 
graph here  that  I  want  to  read  with  regard  to  the  land  colonization 
plan.  It  reflects  the  experience  of  this  commission,  based  on  the 
results  in  California  of  their  land  colonization  scheme,  and  it  is  fair 
to  say  that  they  have  only  gone  into  that  matter  in  a  very  limited 
way,  only  a  few  thousand  acres — three  or  four  thousand.  This  com- 
mission says  that  the  colony  plan  necessarily  accepts  the  current 
speculative  price  of  land;  and  in  discussing  this  plan,  as  it  has 
worked  out  in  California,  this  is  their  criticism  [reading]  : 

Then-  is  nolhini:  in  the  ]>l;m  aimed  to  the  depression  of  this  price  or  the 
corrcci  ion  of  the  terms  upon  which  hind  is  jienerally  sold  to  settlers  in  the 
States.  The  board,  it  is  true,  obtained  favorable  terms  and  no  doubt  a  re- 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  223 

duction  in  price  on  the  land  which  it  bought,  but  it  is  notorious  that  any  con- 
cession made  in  this  matter  has  been  prompted  by  the  expectation  of  a  rise 
in  land  values  in  the  vicinity  of  the  settlement.  In  response  to  the  board's 
proposal  to  purchase  lands  many  large  landholders,  not  less  than  40  in  17 
counties,  hurried  forward  with  offers  of  tracts  aggregating  200,000  acres,  and 
this  eagerness  was  manifested  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  terms  stated  by 
the  board  were  exceptionally  unattractive  in  the  eyes  of  the  average  California 
land  merchant.  Thus,  for  any  modification  of  current  terms  and  prices  ob- 
tained by  the  board  for  its  own  settlers  there  will  be  a  corresponding  increase  in 
prices  and  a  stiffening  of  terms  for  settlers  elsewhere.  The  crying  evil  of 
high  prices  and  short  terms  of  payment  throughout  the  State  remains  the 
same. 

Then  in  the  third  paragraph  it  discusses  this  land  colonization 
system  as  follows: 

It  offers  small  encouragement  to  the  poor  man.  A  late  statement  is  to  the 
effect  that  the  applicant  for  a  farm  must  have  at  least  $1,500  capital,  and  he 
is  advised  that  an  amount  of  from  $2,000  to  $2,500  would  be  still  better. 

If  the  social  purpose  is  to'  open  the  lands  of  California  to  those  who  most 
need  it,  this  plan  surely  does  not  meet  the  final  test. 

I  think  that  this  is  pertinent  to  the  discussion  of  this  bill  because 
of  the  fact  that,  as  I  understand  it,  a  prospective  settler,  under  the 
plan  before  this  committee,  would  have  to  put  up  a  certain  amount, 
and  it  has  been  stated  that  it  will  possibly  be  about  $1,500.  I  don't 
know  whether  that  is  the  right  estimate  or  not,  but  if  it  is  the 
experience  of  the  California  commission  with  a  plan  calling  for  a 
similar  initial  payment  should  be  considered. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Who  issued  this  publication? 

Mr.  BRANOTN.  It  is  issued  by  the  California  Commission  of  Immi- 
gration and  Housing.  This  has  the  date  mark  1919,  and  is  published 
at  the  California  State  printing  office,  Sacramento. 

Now,  the  constructive  suggestion  of  this  commission  is  right  in 
line  with  the  position  of  the  Farmers'  Single  Tax  League,  and  the 
position  that  Mr.  Starr  has  taken  for  some  form  of  land-value  tax. 
The  commission  proposes  a  graduated  land  tax  as  the  best  agency 
to  break  up  land  speculation  in  California.  I  simply  bring  that  in 
not  to  go  into  the  argument  but  as  a  suggestion.  That  is  the  attitude 
of  those  people  who  have  made  quite  a  deep  study  of  it. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Mr.  Chairman,  can  we  properly  take  up  the  question  of 
taxation  here? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  we  don't  want  to  go  into  the  question  of 
single  tax. 

Mr.  BRANOTN-.  Well,  gentlemen,  my  idea  is  not  to  introduce  an 
academic  subject,  but  to  emphasize  the  importance  of  a  consideration 
of  the  power  of  taxation  to  do  the  thing  which  was  mentioned  yes- 
terday— to  prevent  land  speculation  in  the  working  out  of  this 
project.  Now,  some  one  mentioned  the  fact,  or  spoke  of  it  as  being 
a  theoretical  question.  That  may  be  true  in  a  way,  and  yet  I  could 
quote  you  and  would  like  to  have  the  time,  if  the  committee  will  not 
object.  I  wrould  like  to  bring  in  here  some  of  the  practical  ex- 
periences  

Mr.  RAKER  (interposing).  Before  you  pass  the  California  matter, 
that  theory  was  defeated  by  the  people  of  California  at  the  last 
election  ? 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  Yes;  it  has  been  voted  on  two  or  three  times  in 
California. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  defeated  quite  heavily,  wasn't  it? 

133319—19 15 


224  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  BRANNIX.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  It  will  be  voted  on  again,  won't  it? 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  It  will  be  voted  on  again,  yes;  and  increasingly  as 
time  goes  on. 

Now,  I  would  like  to  bring  in  here  the  experience  of  an  irrigation 
district  in  California,  of  several  irrigation  districts,  totaling  some- 
thing like  a  million  acres.  This  was  a  report  issued  in  1914,  and  I 
have  seen  nothing  to  indicate  that  there  has  been  any  change  in  the 
feeling  of  the  people  in  these  districts  since.  This  is  a  statement 
issued  in  1914  by  the  city  trustees  of  Oakdale,  Calif.,  about  8,000  acres 
in  the  district,  signed  by  all  the  directors  of  the  district,  the  board 
of  trade,  women  s  improvement  club,  bankers,  etc.,  giving  their 
experience  with  the  single-tax  idea  in  doing  away  with  land  specu- 
lation, and  in  encouraging  the  small  home  owner  in  making  use  of 
the  land  and  discouraging  the  building  up  of  large  estates. 

The  Oakdale  irrigation  district  was  organized  as  a  single-tax  irrigation  dis- 
trict under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  California  in  1909.  The  chief  argument  in 
favor  of  organization  under  the  single-tax  system  for  raising  revenue  for  the 
operation  of  the  system  was  that  the  farmers  would  not  be  penalized  for  their 
industry;  that  when  our  farmers  improve  their  land  by  plant  ing  alfalfa,  setting 
out  trees  and  vines,  building  dwellings  and  barns,  and  other  improvements, 
their  taxes  will  not  be  increased,  and  that  they  would  pay  the  same  taxes 
as  their  neighbors  with  the  same  area  and  policy  of  land  who  made  no  improve- 
ments. Even  in  the  short  space  of  less  than  a  year  many  of  the  promises  made 
for  the  single  tax  have  been  fulfilled.  The  large  ranch,  so  common  under  the 
old  system  of  taxation,  is  fast  disappearing  from  our  district.  Speculators  do 
not  buy  land  here.  Each  sale  is  made  to  an  actual  settler,  who  brings  his  family 
among  us,  builds  a  decent  home,  betters  the  social  conditions  of  his  neighbor- 
hood, and  adds  to  the  prosperity  of  the  community.  Our  experience  has  taught 
us  that  the  more  you  relieve  improvements  from  taxation,  the  quicker  the  coun- 
try will  improve.  Single  taxation  is  the  best  system  of  taxation  for  our  farmers. 
We  know  that  it  is  making  our  district  a  success.  All  of  our  farmers  favor  it, 
because  of  the  exemption  of  improvements,  and  no  one  in  the  district  wants  to 
go  back  to  the  old  system.  The  single-tax  system  is  right  because  it  improves 
the  country.  Our  farmers  put  the  land  to  its  highest  use,  the  use  that  is  most 
beneficial  to  the  community.  Our  system  of  taxation  compels  them  to  do  this, 
and  they  thus  reap  a  greater  profit  for  themselves.  Many  say  that  they  can  now 
afford  to  borrow  money  to  make  improvements  which  they  could  not  do  under 
the  old  system. 

That  is  the  statement.  And  the  tax  rate,  it  says  there,  is  $6.20  on 
the  $100. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Can  I  interrupt  there  a  minute?  Do  I  understand 
that  this  tax  rate  you  refer  to  is  the  tax  rate  applied  by  the  county 
assessor  to  the  land  in  the  Oakdale  district  ? 

Mr.  BRANXIN.  That  is  my  understanding  of  it. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  The  county  assessor  assesses  the  land  in  the  Oakdale 
district  differently  from  what  he  does  land  in  other  parts  of  Stanis- 
laus County? 

Mr.  BRANXIX.  I  understand  there  was  an  act  passed  through  the 
legislature  which  gave  a  degree  of  home  rule  in  taxation  in  that  par- 
ticular district. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  And  that  theory  is  applied  only  to  land  in  the  Oak- 
dale  district,  and  not  to  the  other  land  in  Stanislaus  County? 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  As  I  undersand  this  statement,  there  are  several 
irrigation  districts,  the  Modesto  district,  the  Oakdale  district,  the 
Turlock  district  and  several  others,  involving  about  1,000,000  acre-:. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  And  (lie  Tatterson  district  ( 

Mr.  BRAXXIX.  I  don't  remember  that  name. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  225 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  That  is  a  private  scheme. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Yes,  sir.    That  is  a  private  scheme. 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  Now,  I  want  to  bring  in  here,  gentlemen — it  will 
take  just  a  minute — the  recommendation  for  the  taxing  of  land  values 
adopted  by  the  Ohio  State  Federation  of  Labor  at  its  recent  recon- 
struction convention,  simply  to  show  that  the  single  tax,  or  the 
land  value  tax  idea,  is  not  in  a  theoretical  state.  It  is  receiving  the 
attention  of  organized  workers  all  over  the  country  and  is  being  made 
an  integral  part  of  their  demands.  This  is  a  convention  of  the  Ohio 
State  Federation  of  Labor : 

We  maintain  that  the  existence  of  idle  land  and  idle  labor  constitute  a 
travesty  on  the  intelligence  and  common  sense 

Mr.  JOHNSON  (interposing).  Mr.  Chairman,  in  order  that  I  may 
set  myself  right,  I  want  to  enter  my  protest  just  as  one  member  of  this 
committee  against  taking  up  the  time  of  the  people  and  spending 
their  money  here  to  hear  the  single  tax  theory  discussed.  Now,  I  don't 
ask  that  it 'be  adopted,  but  I  enter  my  protest  against  it  in  order  that 
it  may  be  on  record  here. 

Mr.  MAYS.  I  don't  think  it  has  any  place  here. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  gentleman  has  three  minutes,  and  of  course 
the  committee  is  not  going  to  take  up  the  matter  of  single  tax,  but 
I  think  we  would  get  through  quicker  by  letting  him  complete  his 
statement. 

Mr.  MAYS.  How  many  minutes  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Three  minutes. 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  To  continue: 

We  maintain  that  the  existence  of  idle  laud  and  idle  labor  constitute  a 
travesty  on  intelligence  and  common  sense,  and  in  order  that  such  a  paradox 
shall  no  longer  exist,  we  insist  that  it  is  the  duty  of  our  Government,  National 
and  State,  to  take  immediate  steps  to  democratize  land  distribution  and  reduce 
the  speculative  value  of  land. 

The  Chicago  Labor  Party's  position  is  this : 

The  payment  of  the  current  expenses  of  Government  by  a  system  of  taxation 
of  land  values,  which  will  stimulate  rather  than  retard  production. 

And  the  position  of  the  American  Labor  Party  of  Greater  New 
York  is  as  follows : 

To  provide  sufficient  revenue,  we  favor  the  use  of  a  taxation  system  which 
will  derive  the  revenues  from  laud  values  in  such  a  way  as  to  stimulate  rather 
than  retard  production. 

The  Washington  State  Grange  has  gone  on  record  in  its  thirtieth 
annual  convention  as  follows: 

The  convention  of  the  Washington  State  Grange  reaffirms  the  historic  tax 
platform  of  this  organization  for  a  straight  land  value  tax. 

The  American  Society  of  Equity  is  on  record  in  favor  of  a  gradu- 
ated land  tax. 

In  same  way  the  Farmers'  National  Council  has  declared  for  the 
taxation  of  land  values  in  such  a  way  as  to  discourage  land  specula- 
tion. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Your  time  is  up,  Mr.  Brannin. 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  If  I  might  have  just  a  minute  to  kind  of  put  a 
cracker  on  a  few  things  I  have  said,  I  would  appreciate  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Without  objection,  the  gentleman's  time  will  be 
extended  one  minute. 


226  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  My  hope  was  that  the  committee  would  forget  the 
attitude  held  by  many  with  regard  to  reform  in  taxation,  especially 
with  regard  to  the  single  tax — classing  it  as  a  theory,  dismissing  it 
because  it  had  a  name  that  had  come  to  be  unpopular — and  would  con- 
sider it  on  its  merits.  In  view  of  the  experience  of  other  countries,  in 
view  of  the  experience  in  a  limited  way  in  this  country,  I  had  hoped 
the  committee  would  see  that  if  you  want  to  do  away  with  land 
speculation  in  any  plan  for  bringing  the  land  to  the  soldier,  or  get- 
ting the  soldier  on  the  land,  you  must  use  the  power  of  taxation  or  you 
must  fix  on  some  scheme  that  will  discourage  speculation  and  en- 
courage the  use  and  development  of  land.  Now,  it  seems  to  me  that 
in  this  colony  idea  this  could  be  done  if  the  title  to  the  land  remained 
in  the  Government,  as  Mr.  Starr  and  Mr.  Kent  have  suggested,  and 
if  you  would  follow  the  general  practice  for  the  development  of  irri- 
gation and  drainage  projects,  based  on  the  benefit  district  idea,  and 
establish  a  benefit  district  around  these  farm  colonies  so  that  the  land- 
owner who  happens  to  live  adjacent  to  such  colonies  will  not  get  the 
benefit  of  the  industry  and  progress  of  the  members  of  that  com- 
munity, through  the  increase  in  the  value  of  his  land. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Your  time  is  up. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Just  a  moment,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  want  to  ask  the 
gentleman  who  has  just  spoken  whether  he  has  anything  further  to 
say  on  the  bill  that  is  now  pending  before  the  committee,  or  upon  the 
question  of  the  legislation  in  regard  to  soldiers'  settlements,  or  the 
homestead  bill  ? 

Mr.  BRANMN.  Why,  I  could  take — I  would  be  glad  to  have  more 
time  here. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Have  you  anything  further  to  say  on  this  bill,  or  this 
proposed  legislation  ? 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  Before  the  committee? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  No,  sir;  I  have  nothing  more,  since  my  time  has 
expired. 

Mr.  RAKER.  No;  that  isn't  the  question.  I  am  asking  you  now — 
whether  the  time  has  expired  or  not — whether  you  have  anything 
further  to  say  that  would  be  of  interest  and  assist  the  committee  and 
is  pertinent  to  this  bill? 

Mr.  BRA  NX  IN.  Why,  I  have  a  number  of  things  that  I  would  like 
to  have  said. 

Mr.. RAKER.  That  relates  especially  to  this  legislation? 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  Emphasizing  the  idea  I  spoke  of  there  of  this  bene- 
fit district  plan. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  I  don't  want  you  to  leave,  and  I  don't  want  your 
association  to  say  that  you  didn't  have  an  opportunity  to  be  heard 
before  this  committee. 

Mr.  BpANNiN.  I  won't  say  that.  I  will  answer  your  question  in 
that  way. 

Mr.  RAKER.  If  you  will  say  that  you  have  anything  to  say  pertinent 
on  this  bill  and  would  like  to  present  the  matter  further  that  would 
assist  the  committee  in  getting  proper  legislation,  then  I  am  going  to 
make  a  motion  that  you  be  given  further  time. 

Mr.  BRANMN.  Well,  I  thank  the  committee  for  the  time,  and  am 
glad  to  say  we  are  satisfied. 

Mr.  RAKER.  All  right. 


HOMES   FOE   SOLDIERS.  227 

Mr.  TILLMAN.  Mr.  Brannin,  before  you  go,  one  question  just  for 
my  own  satisfaction.  You  speak  about  compelling  the  soldier  to  pay 
a  larger  tax  on  these  lands  that  he  gets.  Do  you  believe  it  is  not 
proper  to  tax  personal  property  at  all  \ 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  No,  sir;  we  don't  believe  in  the  taxation  of  personal 
property. 

Mr.  TILLMAN.  I  just  wanted  to  know.  Then  if  a  lawyer  earns 
$100,000  a  year,  you  are  not  in  favor  of  taxing  that  income  of 
$100,000? 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  I  will  say  this,  as  an  individual,  that  there  is  a  dif- 
ference between  the  attitude  of  the  single  taxer  and  the  single-tax 
philosophy.  As  an  individual,  under  the  present  system  of  society, 
I  believe  in  a  drastic  income  and  inheritance  tax.  I  don't  know  as  I 
would  make  it  over  $100,000,  but  the  single-tax  philosophy  doesn't 
contemplate  any  other  tax  except  the  tax  upon  land  values.  It 
exempts  improvements  because  it  is  based  upon  the  idea  that  what 
a  man  has  represents  what  he  has  earned;  that  he  is  not  taking  ad- 
vantage of  some  special  privilege,  nor  taking  advantage  of  some 
other  individual. 

Mr.  TILLMAN.  You  don't  think  that  these  vast  industries  that  have 
been  built  up  by  reason  of  the  war  should  pay  for  that  benefit? 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  I  do. 

Mr.  TILLMAN.  But  you  would  do  away  with  the  $60,000,000  that  we 
get  by  reason  of  our  income  from  personal  property,  and  the  land 
should  bear  all  this  taxation? 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  Under  the  present  situation,  I  believe  in  a  drastic 
income  and  inheritance  and  land  value  tax,  to  take  care  of  the  war 
debt,  and  with  no  other  taxes  on  industries,  or  improvements,  or 
business,  or  any  thing  else. 

Mr.  TILLMAN.  Then  you  think  \i  would  be  doing  the  soldier  a  kind- 
ness to  give  him  100  acres  of  land  and  tax  him  to  death  to  pay  the 
war  tax  on  it? 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  Not  tax  him  to  death;  only  tax  the  land  according 
to  its  value.  If  the  soldier  has  very  valuable  lands,  he  should  pay 
taxes  in  proportion,  because  the  idea  would  be  that  he  would  be  get- 
ting a  certain  benefit  from  the  use  of  that  very  valuable  land  which 
would  more  than  compensate  him. 

Mr.  TILLMAN.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Just  a  word,  on  the  bill.  You  are  the  secretary  of  the 
Farmers'  Single  Tax  League? 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FKIIHLS.  And  Mr.  Starr,  who  preceded  you,  is  President  of  it? 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  He  is  chairman  of  the  league. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  heard  his  statements  wherein  he  said  he  was  in 
favor  of  having  the  bill  made  applicable  to  everybody? 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Do  you  share  that  same  view  ? 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  I  take  this  position  that  the  bill  should  be  made 
applicable  to  everybody,  with  preference  given  to  the  soldiers. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  sort  of  preference? 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  Well,  some  one  suggested  three  years.  I  don't 
remember  just  the  details,  but  anything  that  is  reasonable,  that  will 
insure  that  the  soldier  gets  first,  chance. 


228  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  The  other  thought  was  that  title  to  the  land  should 
not  pass  from  the  Federal  Government  at  all,  and  that  the  soldier 
should  have  a  leasehold  or  something  of  the  sort.  You  are  of  the 
same  opinion  about  that? 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  I  am,  and  let  me  say  this,  that  under  our  present 
system  of  land  tenure  the  tendency  is  all  toward  farm  tenancy. 
Everjr  year  sees  an  increase,  according  to  the  census  figures,  of  the 
farms  operated  by  tenants,  and  fewer  farms  operated  by  owners. 
Now,  if  the  present  system  discloses  that  condition,  why  should  we  be 
fearful  of  trying  the  other  idea  of  letting  the  title  remain  in  the 
Government,  with  the  provision  that  a  man  shall  pay  ground  rent 
each  year,  be  given  absolute  security  in  the  possession  and  use  of  that 
land,  and  not  be  exploited  as  he  is  under  the  present  system  ? 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  May  I  ask  one  question  ?  You  heard  the  statement 
of  the  gentleman  over  here  that  this  bill  that  is  before  the  House 
would  only  take  care  of  2  per  cent  of  pur  soldiers  first.  Now,  evi- 
dently you  must  be  in  favor  of  this  bill,  because  you  say  that  the 
soldiers  should  be  taken  care  of  first.  This  bill  only  takes  care  of  2 
per  cent  of  them,  and  evidently  you  can  have  no  objection,  if,  under 
this  bill,  it  only  takes  care  of  2  per  cent  through  the  bill. 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  Well,  I  favor  the  bill  with  the  objections  I  have 
made  as  regards  to  leasehold  title  and  making  its  general  provisions 
open  to  all,  and  giving  the  soldiers  preference. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  You  can't  make  the  provisions  open  to  all,  bemuse 
it  will  only  take  care  of  2  per  cent  of  the  soldiers.  Then  you  would 
have  to  have  another  appropriation  to  take  care  of  more. 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  If  the  bill  is  drawn  so  that  it  applies  that  way,  I 
don't  see  why  there  is  any  particular  point  there. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Mr.  Brannin,  I  understood  you  to  say  that  this  sys- 
tem of  taxation  that  is  being  applied  in  the  Oakdale  reclamation  dis- 
trict has  been  very  successful  ? 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  I  am  taking  this  statement  here  for  it. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  I  didn't  know  there  was  any  distinction  made  as  to 
land  situated  in  the  Oakdale  district,  but  isn't  it  a  fact  that  the  people 
of  Stanislaus  County  have  voted  down  this  single  tax  proposition  by 
a  big  majority  every  time  it  was  submitted? 

Mr.  BRANNIN.  I  admit  I  am  not  familiar  with  the  vote  in  Cali- 
fornia by  counties. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  wish  to  introduce 
to  you  ex-Gov.  Gooding,  of  Idaho. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  F.  R.  GOODING,  OF  GOODING,  IDAHO. 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  might  say.  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  am  representing 
an  association  that  was  formed  about  GO  days  a<>-o  for  the  purpose 
of  encouraging  legislation  recognizing  the  soldier. 

The  Cir.vntMAX.  For  the  records,  you  were  governor  of  the  State 
of  Idaho  for  how  many  years? 

Mr.  GOODING.  For  two  terms. 

That  association  at  the  present  time  has  about  20,000  members  and 
is  growing  all  the  time.  My  State  appropriated  $100,000  to  work 
in  cooperation  with  the  Government,  doing  those  things  that  it  may 
find  to  do,  not  in  the  way  of  construction,  because  all  of  our  projects 
out  there  are  big  and  will  be  expensive. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  229 

The  first  object  of  our  organization  is  to  encourage  the  passage 
of  some  legislation  along  the  line  that  you  have  in  the  bill  before 
you.  Then  again  the  hope  that  Idaho  *is  going  to  share  with  the 
other  States  in  the  Union  in  this  great  development.  I  have  been 
impressed,  Mr.  Chairman,  as  I  have  been  sitting  here  for  two  days 
listening  to  the  arguments,  that  this  committee  is  intensely  interested 
in  this  bill :  that  you  feel  it  is  the  most  important  legislation  that  has 
ever  been  before  'Congress  on  land  matters.  You  want  it  right,  and 
you  want  the  spirit  of  it  right  all  the  way  through. 

Mr.  Chairman,  it  might  be  well  for  me  to  qualify  as  a  witness  by 
giving  you  some  of  my  life's -work.  My  early  boyhood  days  were 
spent  upon  a  farm  in  Michigan.  Later  in  life,  but  still  in  my  boy- 
hood days,  I  went  to  California  and  worked  on  great  wheat  ranches 
in  the  Sacramento  valley.  Judge  Raker,  in  those  days  40  years  ago, 
it  was  the  custom  on  some  of  those  ranches  to  eat  two  meals  by  candle- 
light the  year  round,  and  when  the  harvest  was  on  we  ate  our  dinner 
in  the  shade  of  the  header  wagon. 

Then  in  1881  I  went  to  Idaho,  when  it  was  still  a  territory.  In 
1889  Mrs.  Gooding  and  I  homesteaded  near  the  town  of  Gooding. 
Tt  wa>  during  my  two  terms  as  governor  that  the  great  development 
in  irrigation  took  place  in  my  State  under  the  Carey  Act.  During 
that  time  the  Government  was  doing  a  great  work  out  there,  and  I 
like  the  bill  that  is  before  you — at  least,  I  like  the  administration 
part  of  the  bill,  because  a  great  deal  of  it  is  going  to  be  left  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior,  and  through  him  and  under  him  the 
Reclamation  Service.  The  people  of  my  State,  and  I  believe  the 
people  of  the  West,  have  confidence  in  Mr.  Lane.  They  like  him,  and 
the  people  have  confidence  in  the  Reclamation  Service,  for  in  my 
State  they  have  constructed  the  highest  masonary  dam  in  the  world. 
Associated  with  the  Government  at  the  present  time  are  engineers 
who  were  associated  with  the  State  when  it  constructed  under  the 
Carey  Act  the  biggest  irrigation  canal  in  the  world,  with  the  excep- 
tion "of  those  built  by  the  British  Government  in  Egypt,  All  the 
work,  so  far  as  Idaho  is  concerned,  that  has  been  done*  by  the  Gov- 
ernment, has  inspired  confidence,  so  that  the  people  of  Idaho  feel 
that  you  are  starting  out  in  this  great  work  with  an  organization  that 
knows  just  exactly  what  to  do.  We  have  had  much  to  dp  with  the 
human  part  of  this  great  development — which,  to  my  mind,  is  the 
most  important  part  of  it  all.  and  that  is  what  I  want  to  discuss 
with  you  very  largely. 

I  don't  like  altogether  the  spirit  of  the  bill  under  discussion.  I 
think  its  lines  are  rather  too  hard.  I  feel  that  you  make  the  initial 
payment  too  much.  I  am  afraid  you  are  going  to  make  it  impossible 
for  some  of  the  boys  who  have  answered  their  country's  call  in  this 
great  war  to  make  homes  upon  these  new  projects. 

I  believe  that  90  per  cent  of  the  people  of  this  country  are  asking 
that  you  shall  recognize  the  soldier  very  fully  in  this  bill.  I  do  not 
think  there  is  any  question  about  that.  I  have  never  heard  any  ob- 
jection, Mr.  Chairman,  until  I  heard  it  stated  before  this  committee. 
I  have  made  it  my  business  to  feel  the  pulse  of  the  people  on  every 
occasion  that  I  find  an  opportunity.  I  have  found  them  practically 
unanimously  in  favor  of  recognizing  the  soldier  in  our  land  laws  in 
the  future. 


230  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

There  are  three  provisions  in  this  bill  that  I  want  to  discuss  with 
you  and  offer  suggestions.  I  want  to  be  constructive,  and  I  know 
the  committee  wants  something  to  go  out  to  the  people  that  has  the 
right  spirit  in  it  toward  the  soldiers.  You  are  making  him  a  party 
to  the  greatest  development  this  country  has  ever  known,  and  you 
want  him  to  have  the  feeling  that  he  is  a  party  with  the  Government 
in  the  biggest  work  that  it  has  ever  undertaken  in  increasing  the 
productiveness  of  the  soil.  We  must  not  forget,  Mr.  Chairman,  these 
young  men  have  given  up  considerable  time,  at  a  dollar  a  day,  to  save 
their  country.  Some  of  them  may  have  had  some  savings  before  the 
war,  but  the  chances  are  that  it  is  all  gone.  They  are  starting  to-day, 
many  of  these  young  men,  with  practically  nothing  but  their  two 
hands.  They  may  be  married.  I  hope  they  are,  for  I  should  like  to 
see  this  bill  provide  that  the  soldier  who  has  a  family  shall  be  given 
the  first  chance,  for  I  want  to  tell  you  that  the  young  man  can  not 
succeed  on  the  farm  without  a  wife.  It  is  a  work  for  two,  and  not 
for  one.  I  think  this  Government  should  do  those  things  on  all  occa- 
sions, so  far  as  it  can,  to  encourage  the  young  man  to  get  married, 
and  if  this  provision  were  in  the  bill  it  would  be  an  encouragement. 
This  bill  provides  that  the  young  soldier  who  is  the  owner  of  a  farm 
shall  not  participate  in  this  bill,  and  in  this  provision  I  agree  with 
you  thoroughly. 

As  I  understand  the  bill,  you  want  to  give  the  young  soldier  who 
has  very  little  in  this  life  a  chance  to  make  a  home  on  these  new 
projects.  For  a  soldier  to  take  advantage  of  this  bill  when  he  enters 
into  a  contract  with  the  Government,  if  he  is  to  make  a  home  in  the 
West,  that  will  cost  the  Government  $100  an  acre  to  put  water  on  it, 
and  the  unit  is  80  acres,  which  I  believe  it  should  be  in  most  cases,  he 
will  need  $400  for  his  initial  payment.  This  bill  provides  that  the 
Government  may  loan  him  not  more  than  $1,200  for  building  a  home 
and  other  improvements,  of  which  he  shall  furnish  25  per  cent;  it 
also  provides,  as  I  understand  it,  that  the  Government  will  loan  the 
applicant  $800  for  the  purchase  of  live  stock,  of  which  he  must  fur- 
nish 40  per  cent.  This  means  that  a  soldier  must  have  practically 
$1,000  or  more  to  qualify  as  an  entryman.  If  he  has  a  family,  he  is 
not  going  to  be  able  to  save  much  working  on  your  reclamation 
projects,  wherever  they  may  be,  in  the  East  or  in  the  West,  at  $4  a 
day.  You  are  asking  him  to  pay  5  per  cent  of  the  selling  price  of  his 
farm  when  he  enters  into  a  contract  with  the  Government,  I  think 
that  part  should  be  changed.  I  believe  the  first  initial  payment  on 
the  land  should  be  deferred  for  five  years,  for  the  Government  is  not 
taking  any  chances  with  the  young  soldier  who  is  trying  to  build  a 
home  on  these  new  projects.  Every  day's  work  that  he  puts  upon 
the  farm  he  is  making  this  a  bigger  and  a  better  country.  There  is 
no  chance  for  the  Government  to  lose.  He  can  not  save  this  amount 
of  money  while  working  on  any  project  in  this  country  unless  his 
work  is  to  extend  over  a  number  of  years. 

There  will  be  seed  to  buy,  and  he  must  establish  a  home.  There  i? 
furniture  and  a  hundred  different  things  to  purchase  when  you  stnrr 
a  new  home.  And  then  there  may  be  a  baby  coming  along  about 
that  time,  and  there  will  be  a  doctor  bill  to  pay.  All  these  things, 
Mr.  Chairman,  should  be  taken  into  consideration  in  f  ram  ing  (h:- 
bill.  If  the  young  soldier  is  to  succeed  there  should  be  an  init'nl 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  231 

payment,  but  it  should  not  be  more  than  $250,  and  that  $250  should 
be  put  into  live  stock,  into  the  home  and  the  barn;  then  with  the 
advance  the  Government  should  make,  he  could  make  a  fair  start. 
I  want  to  see  the  provisions  of  this  bill  made  as  easy  as  possible  so 
that  the  young  fellow  who  is  without  a  dollar  to-day  in  his  pocket 
may  take  advantage  of  it.  I  should  regret,  and  I  am  sure  that  this 
committee  would  regret,  to  find  that  some  fellow  was  not  able  to 
get  married  because  he  did  not  have  a  dollar  to  start  in  housekeeping 
with,  and  that  he  was  forced  to  pay  this  Government  every  penny 
in  his  possession  before  he  could  commence  to  try  and  make  a  home. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  that  it  is  true  that  any  citizen  of  this 
country  can  go  to  Canada  and  may  get  just  as  reasonable  terms  from 
that  Government  as  is  offered  in  this  bill.  It  is  my  understanding 
that  that  Government  is  offering  great  inducements  for  new  settlers. 

I  have  seen  land  sold  out  West  without  any  payment  down,  and 
no  one  was  the  loser,  and  we  must  not  forget  the  soldier  who  goes 
on  these  projects  is  going  to  make  this  a  bigger  and  better  country, 
and  we  must  give  him  a  chance  to  succeed.  I  do  not  know  whether 
I  have  made  myself  clear  on  this  matter,  but  I  am  sure  that  I  am 
right.  I  have  lived  on  an  irrigation  project  for  a  number  of  years, 
Mr.  Chairman,  and  I  have  seen  the  human  side  with  its  privations 
and  hardships — that  always  comes  to  a  pioneer.  The  provisions  of 
this  bill  should  be  made  as  easy  as  possible,  and  at  the  same  time 
safeguard  the  interest  of  the  Government. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  think  there  should  be  some  initial  payment? 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  think  likely  $250  would  be  enough,  Mr.  Chairman. 
If  he  wants  to  have  buildings  and  equipment  that  will  cost  $2,000, 
then  I  would  say  $500.  But  I  would  keep  that  entirely  within  his 
means,  and  I  would  make  a  provision,  if  he  has  not  even  that  much, 
if  I  could  in  the  bill,  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  might  recog- 
nize him  if  he  is  worthy,  for  a  young  man  might  work  two  years  or 
more  on  the  project  and  then  have  sickness  in  his  family.  I  should 
like  to  see  this  bill  give  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  authority  to 
take  all  such  matters  as  this  into  consideration,  so  that  no  young 
soldier  will  be  left  without  a  home  after  he  has  made  an  .honest 
effort. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Initial  payment  is  required  at  the  present  time 
under  the  Government  reclamation  law. 

Mr.  GOODING.  That  should  be  changed.  I  know  one  of  the  greatest 
hardships  to  our  people  in  the  West  has  been  the  first  payment. 
That  has  been  the  hardest  payment  of  all  to  make.  It  has  been  a 
mistake,  in  my  mind,  as  I  have  seen  the  development  of  that  great 
country  out  there.  It  is  then  he  needs  the  help.  That  money  the 
Government  takes  from  him  he  will  need  in  many  cases  while  he  is 
working  to  make  this  a  bigger  and  a  better  country. 

Mr.  BAER.  Mr.  Chairman,  right  there,  is  it  not  your  experience, 
Governor,  with  the  young  men,  that  those  that  have*$2,000  or  $1,000, 
or  a  good  position,  would  not  want  to  go  on  a  farm?  The  fact  is,  a 
fellow  would  be  down  and  out  before  he  would  go  out  and  work  on 
a  farm  now  days.  So  that  carries  out  your  theory  that  a  small  pay- 
ment is  the  only  way  we  can  get  at  it? 

Mr.  GOODING.  Yes ;  you  are  wanting  to  take  care  and  help  the  fel- 
low who  needs  help.  That  is  the  spirit  you  should  want  to  get  in  this 


232  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

bill  all  the  way  through.  The  making  of  the  man,  the  making  of  the 
home,  the  opportunity,  and  that  is  all  you  are  giving  him — an  oppor- 
tunity, and  I  would  not  be  for  the  bill,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  it  did  more 
than  give  him  an  opportunity.  I  do  not  think  the  soldier  is  asking 
for  any  more  than  an  opportunity.  I  hope  this  Congress,  or  some 
Congress,  will  recognize  all  the  soldiers — not  the  man  who  wants  to 
go  on  the  farm  alone,  but  when  you  come  to  give  something  more 
than  an  opportunity,  I  think  you  should  give  it  to  all  the  soldiers,  all 
alike,  all  the  way  down  the  line. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  "soldiers,"  Governor  ? 

Mr.  GOODING.  Well,  I  hope  sometime  that  there  will  be  some  act  of 
Congress  that  will  recognize  all — possibly  by  some  gift. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  All  the  soldiers  of  this  war? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  Of  this  wrar,  yes. 

Mr.  BAER.  You  think  by  six  months'  pay  like  England  has  done, 
or  Australia  and  Canada  ? 

Mr.  GOODING.  Yes ;  something  like  that.  I  think  this  country  could 
afford  to  be  mighty  generous  in  these  matters  for,  after  all,  we  have 
grown  rich  out  of  this  war.  There  is  no  question  about  that.  We 
have  occupied  an  advantage  that  has  given  to  us  the  trade  of  the 
whole  world.  The  products  of  other  countries  have  been  piled  up 
waiting  for  transportation;  ours  have  been  carried  to  Europe  at 
big  prices.  Those  young  men  who  have  made  it  possible  to  look  the 
whole  world  in  the  face  and  say :  "  I  am  proud  that  I  am  an  Ameri- 
can citizen,"  should  not  be  forgotten.  I  have  always  been  proud  of 
being  an  American  citizen,  but  there  have  been  times  in  the  past 
when  I  have  not  made  much  noise  about  it. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Are  you  in  favor  of  taking  in  everybody,  nonsoldiers 
as  well  as  soldiers  ? 

Mr.  GOODING.  No;  I  am  not  in  favor  of  that  at  all.  I  want  this 
bill  to  recognize  the  soldiers  first  of  all.  That  is  the  spirit  of  it; 
that  is  what  the  people  want. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  are  a  Western  man ;  you  have  been  a  homesteader 
and  a  governor  of  a  great  State ;  you  know  the  country ;  what  do  you 
think  of  that  suggestion  made  by  these  single-tax  fellows  to  retain'  all 
the  title  in  the  Government? 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  want  to  see  it  tried  out  over  in  Russia  first. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  are  not  in  favor  of  that? 

Mr.  GOODING.  No;  it  is  impracticable  and  impossible  in  this  coun- 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Could  the  West  ever  be  settled  under  such  a  plan  as 
that? 

Mr.  GOODING.  It  could  not.  I  really  haven't  much  patience  with 
that  idea. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Don't  you  recognize  that  the  ownership  of  an  Ameri- 
can home  is  about  as  high  an  ideal  as  a  man  can  have? 

Mr.  GOODING.  It  is  the  highest  ideal  in  the  world.  It  is  that  which 
has  made  this  cpuntiy  the  grandest  country  in  the  world,  with  the 
best  citizenship  in  the  world. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Any  scheme  or  theory  or  plan  to  the  contrary  not- 
withstanding ? 

Mr.  (jooi)iNG.  Absolutely.  Anything  that  would  destroy  that  ideal 
would  break  down  the  citizenship  of  this  country.  That  is  what 
it  means.  That  is  the  urpose  of  it. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  233 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Governor,  what  do  you  think  about  the  suggestion 
made  by  these  Spanish  War  representatives  and  the  Civil  War  rep- 
resentatives? 

Mr  (ioooixG.  I  think  there  is  some  argument  in  that.  I  do  not 
think  you  need  to  be  alarmed  that  there  are  many  Spanish-Ameri- 
can veterans  who  would  take  advantage  of  it.  Most  of  these  men 
are  settled  in  life.  I  listened  to  the  argument  here  the  other  day, 
and  I  was  very  much  impressed — and  I  think  it  is  true — that  after 
all.  our  Spanish- American  boys  have  not  been  considered  as  fully 
as  they  should  have  been;  that  they  really  did  suffer  through  cli- 
matic conditions.  They  were  forced  to  endure  medical  conditions 
that  science  has  improved  so  much  in  the  last  few  years.  I  believe 
they  should  be  provided  for  in  this  bill. 

Mr.  YAILE.  They  were  ready  to  do  all  they  could.  They  showed 
the  right  spirit. 

Mr.  GOODING.  Yes;  they  answered  their  country's  call  all  right 
enough,  and  that  is  the  spirit  we  should  encounrage. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Do  you  think,  Governor,  that  there  would  be  any 
objection  on  the  part  of  the  soldiers  of  our  last  war  if  they  were 
included  ? 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  believe  they  would  like  to  see  them  included.  That 
is  the  spirit  of  the  American  soldier  to-day.  He  has  shown  it  on 
every  occasion.  They  were  good  citizens  before  they  went  to  war, 
but  they  have  come  back  home  bigger  and  better  men. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  What  do  you  say  about  the  suggestion  made  by  Con- 
gressman Garner  of  Texas  yesterday,  concerning  the  donation  of 
$5.000  to  each  man  to  buy  a  farm  with? 

Mr.  GOODING.  No.  that  is  impractical.  I  don't  believe  it  could  be 
worked  put.  I  don't  think  it  is  workable.  I  think  it  would  destroy 
the  spirit  of  all  this  work  that  you  are  trying  to  do  if  you  should 
do  that.  That  is  why  I  say  that  I  hope  this  Congress  will  recognize 
the  soldier  in  a  substantial  way,  the  same  as  other  countries  are 
doing,  and  recognize  them  all. 

Mr.  CHAIRMAN.  Governor,  have  you  found  any  opposition  to  this 
bill  among  the  farmers  that  you  have  met,  on  account  of  the  possi- 
ble competition  it  might  bring  about? 

Mr.  GOODING.  No ;  the  first  proposition  of  that  kind  that  I  heard 
of  was  after  I  had  reached  Washington,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  under- 
stand that  the  head  of  the  Grange  objected  to  the  homestead  law 
and  practically  all  other  land  laws  that  have  done  so  much  for  the 
development  of  the  West.  It  was  not  our  homestead  laws  that 
brought  about  the  development  of  the  West.  It  was  the  building 
of  the  great  transcontinental  railroads,  and  the  building  of  their 
branch  lines  that  brought  into  productiveness  the  greatest  country 
the  world  has  ever  known,  all  within  a  few  years.  I  think  it  can 
be  said  that  the  farmers  of  the  East  did  suffer  from  this  mighty 
development,  but  that  can  not  be  helped.  Nothing  could  have  held 
back  the  development  of  that  great  country. 

Mr.  BAER.  Isn't  it  true,  though.  Governor,  that  the  men  who  left 
these  lands  were  not  the  actual  owners,  but  rather  the  tenants ;  that 
the  actual  owners  were  living  in  the  cities  and  not  on  the  farms  ? 

Mr.  GOODING.  What  is  that? 


234  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  BAER.  Where  that  emigration  went  from ;  that  the  emigration 
west  was  caused  by  farmers  who  did  not  oAvn  homes  in  the  East  and 
who  wanted  to  own  homes  in  the  West. 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  think  that  the  emigration  west  has  been  largely 
made  up  of  young  men,  as  a  rule.  I  think  that  the  western  spirit  has 
been  more  pronounced  among  the  younger  men. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  want  to  make  an  observation.  I  have  seen  it  many 
times,  and  I  think  the  suggestion  is  only  partially  true.  I  think 
the  men  that  went  west  were  the  sons  of  those  farmers  in  the  East, 
largely;  and  while  incidentally  it  works  out  some  injurious  competi- 
tion, the  homestead  law  has  worked  out  the  greatest  development 
of  any  single  act  that  has  ever  been  promulgated  and  passed  by  the 
Government. 

Mr.  GOODING.  There  isn't  any  doubt  about  it  at  all.  There  is 
another  provision  of  this  bill  that  I  want  to  discuss. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  What  is  that? 

Mr.  GOODING.  Just  a  word  on  the  development  of  the  West.  Let 
me  finish  that  subject  by  saying  that  there  is  no  longer  any  danger 
of  any  great  development  in  the  West  as  compared  to  what  we 
have  seen  in  the  last  half  century.  Of  the  lands  left  they  are  only 
garden  spots  as  compared  to  what  I  have  seen  settled  within  my 
lifetime;  and  within  the  memory  of  men  in  this  Congress  what  is 
now  Chicago  was  only  an  Indian  trading  post,  and  all  that  won- 
derful country  out  there  west  of  the  Mississippi  has  been  settled  and. 
I  might  say,  developed.  You  are  dealing  with  the  future  in  this 
legislation  that  you  have  before  you,  and  there  isn't  any  question 
about  the  needs  of  this  country  being  developed  along  the  lines  of 
increased  production  so  that  we  may  be  able  to  feed  our  own  people. 
The  most  serious  questions  that  come  to  every  Government  only  come 
after  all  its  public  lands  are  gone  and  there  is  no  longer  an  oppor- 
tunity to  relieve  the  congested  condition  of  its  great  cities.  We  are 
close  to  that  line  at  the  present  time,  and  our  great  cities  are  already 
congested.  The  one  great  effort  of  this  Government  should  be  to 
make  new  homes  upon  the  land. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  said  there  were  three  matters  that  you  wanted 
to  speak  of  especially.  Will  you  just  give  them  to  us  in  order? 

Mr.  GOODING.  Yes;  I  want  to  discuss  the  cost  of  construction.  I 
want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  cost  of  administration,  and  then  I 
want  to  take  up  that  spirit  in  this  bill  that  I  don't  like,  in  which 
you  practically  take  the  soldier  and  tie  him  down  and  say  :  "  You  are 
going  to  sta}^  there  ten  years,"  if  I  read  the  bill  aright,  "  before  you 
will  have  a  right  to  mortgage  it,  or  have  a  right  to  lease  it,  or  before 
you  will  have  a  right  to  sell  it,  or  do  anything  else  with  it.  unless 
you  get  the  consent  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior."  Mr.  Lane  may 
not  always  be  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  and  those  who  have  had  to 
deal  with  the  red  tape  of  the  Government  who  are  thousands  of  miles 
awaj7  know  that  it  is  mighty  slow  sometimes.  I  want  to  get  that  spirit 
out  of  the  bill,  but  I  want  to  first  discuss  with  you  the  cost  of  con- 
struction. Our  Eeclamation  Service,  all  the  cost  of  that  department 
is  charged  up  to  the  homesteader. 

The  co-t  of  maintaining  the  office  here  in  Washington.  Mr.  Davis"- 
salary,  all  of  his  consulting  engineers,  all  of  the  work  of  putting 
the  projects  on  paper  are  all  charged  up  against  the  man  who  goes 
out  to  make  a  home  on  a  Government  project.  I  know  of  no  other 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  235 

department  of  the  Government  in  this  country  that  charges  to  the 
individual  the  expense  of  its  administration.  I  believe  that  all  the 
expense  of  the  Reclamation  Service  should  be  met  by  a  direct  ap- 
propriation. We  spend  millions  of  dollars  for  improving  our  rivers 
and  harbors;  for  building  great  levees  to  keep  the  water  off  the  land, 
but  if  anyone  who  receives  the  direct  benefit  of  this  expenditure  ever 
pay-  a  dollar  into  the  Government  Treasury  for  it  I  have  not  been 
advised  of  it.  I  believe  that  the  homesteader  should  properly  pay 
for  the  cost  of  construction,  but  that  the  administration  of  the 
Reclamation  Service  should  be  as  free  to  the  homesteader  as  is  the 
service  of  a  hundred  other  departments  of  the  Government  to  every 
citizen  that  it  benefits  and  many  receiving  direct  benefits. 

This  Government  maintains  a  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry.  It 
has  an  army  of  employees  at  high  salaries.  They  inspect  live  stock 
and  prevent  the  spreading  of  many  contagious  diseases  all  over  the 
roimtrq.  Those  receiving  the  direct  benefit  of  it  never  pay  a  dollar 
for  this  protection.  I  am  not  unmindful  that  the  whole  country 
receives  the  benefit  of  this  service  of  the  Government  but  this  is  true 
also  as  far  as  the  work  of  the  Reclamation  Service  is  concerned,  and 
{he  whole  country  should  be  taxed  to  maintain  that  department. 

When  you  come  to  this  great  question  of  bringing  back  the  fer- 
tility of  the  soil  on  worn  out  farms  there  is  going  to  be  a  tremendous 
overhead  expense.  Xo  farmer,  no  young  man,  can  accept  that  ex- 
pen>c-  and  make  a  success  upon  that  farm.  The  expense  will  be  too 
great.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  take  it  for  granted  that  this  bill  provides 
a  complete  control  over  the  land  to  the  extent  of  crop  rotation  as 
long  as  the  title  is  in  the  Government.  We  have  reached  that  period 
in  the  history  of  our  country  in  which  no  man  should  be  allowed 
to  mine  the  soil  and  take  out  all  of  the  fertility.  This  supervision 
would  be  especially  necessary  on  the  worn  out  farms  in  the  East.  I 
know  of  no  other  department  of  the  Government  where  there  is  a 
direct  charge  to  the  citizens  who  are  benefited  by  Government  super- 
vision. 

Then.  Mr.  Chairman,  there  is  another  provision  in  the  bill  that  I 
don't  like.  You  seem  to  want  to  fasten  that  soldier  down  and  say 
to  him  :  "  You  can't  get  away ;  you  have  got  to  stay  here."  This  bill 
provides  he  shall  not  be  permitted  to  make  any  transfers  as  long  as 
the  title  is  in  the  Government  without  consulting  some  one  here  in 
Washington.  I  believe  that  the  bill  should  provide  that  after  a  man 
has  worked  three  years  on  a  farm  he  ought  to  be  given  the  right  to 
sell  his  equity  in  his  holdings  without  consulting  anyone.  Three 
years  is  a  long  time  and  it  would  and  there  would  be  no  danger  of 
speculation.  I  would  like  to  see  the  soldier  given  this  much  inde- 
pendence and  encouragement.  The  title  to  everything  he  possesses 
is  in  the  Government.  If  he  has  an  equity  in  this  three  years'  work 
let  him  sell  it.  If  he  wants  to  let  him  lease  it.  The  young  wife  that 
he  may  bring  from  the  city  to  the  farm  may  find  it  impossible  to  live 
upon  the  farm.  Her  health  might  fail.  A  hundred  complications 
may  come  up  that  can  only  be  known  to  those  who  have  home- 
steaded  or  pioneered  in  this  country,  so  why  tie  him  down  and  de- 
stroy all  his  independence,  and  leave  him  without  that  feeling  that 
he  i-  a  party  with  the  Government  in  the  development  that  this  bill 
proposes. 


236  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  May  I  ask  the  governor  a  question  ?  If  that 
policy  should  be  applied,  would  it  not  be  possible  in  a  short  time 
for  this  land  to  get  into  the  hands  of  those  who  have  never  been 
soldiers,  yet  they  would  get  the  benefit  of  the  long-time  payments, 
and  the  soldier  whose  applications  are  pending  would  be  out  ? 

Mr.  GOODING.  Well,  you  have  helped  the  soldier  who  has  first 
taken  the  land.  Now,  I  would  not  want  to  destroy  any  of  his  rights 
in  the  matter,  or  take  anything  from  him  by  saying  that  only  an- 
other soldier  should  follow  him.  I  think  you  have  got  to  get  more 
independence  in  it  than  that.  Don't  be  alarmed  about  great  land 
holdings  in  the  West.  I  mean  to  say  about  land-holdings  all  getting 
into  the  hands  of  a  few  men.  That  is  not  true  in  my  country,  where 
we  have  had  irrigation  projects  now  for  the  last  30  years.  If  any- 
thing, the  units  are  growing  smaller.  Occasionally,  some  fellow, 
however,  is  able  to  farm  more  than  his  neighbor,  and  he  buys  him 
out.  That  is  progression,  and  I  want  that  spirit  left  with  the  Ameri- 
can people.  If  you  only  give  him  40  acres  and  he  finds  after  a  while 
that  he  can  farm  80  or  120  or  160,  let  him  have  it  if  he  has  the 
money  to  buy  the  other  fellow  out.  Let  us  continue  the  American 
spirit  as  long  as  we  can.  It  is  that  spirit  that  has  made  this  the 
best  country  in  the  world  and  given  us  the  greatest  citizenship  in  the 
world. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Governor,  the  single-tax  representatives  said  they 
wanted  to  prevent  the  alienation  of  the  land  for  the  purpose  of  pre- 
venting speculation.  Is  there  any  speculation  to-day  in  any  Govern- 
ment projects? 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  don't  know  of  one. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  There  absolutely  isn't  any  speculation.  Land  may 
bring  high  prices,  from  $200  or  $300  an  acre,  but  when  he  sells  out, 
another  family  comes  in  and  takes  his  place,  and  there  is  nobody 
trafficking  in  these  things  or  speculating  in  these  lands  now,  is  there  ? 

Mr.  GOODING.  No. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Do  you  have  in  mind  that  project  in  Idaho,  Governor, 
that  Mr.  Kent  referred  to  as  having  largely  fallen  into  the  hands  of 
speculators? 

*  Mr.  GOODING.  No;  I  know  of  no  such  projects.  There  are  a  few 
holdings,  four  or  five  hundred  acres  of  land — there  may  be  some 
larger.  The  large  holdings  are  passing  away  as  a  rule  in  the  West 
as  far  as  cultivated  land  is  concerned. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Governor,  you  laid  down  two  propositions  -that  are 
attractive  on  the  surface,  and  probably  right,  but  I  think  you  1m  vc 
given  this  committee  a  pretty  hard  task  by  proposing  to  take  away 
all  the  overhead  taxes. 

Mr.  GOODING.  Just  for  administration. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  I  am  speaking  of  the  present  proposition.  The 
second  proposition  is  giving  them  an  absolute  foe  simple  title  at  the 
end  of  three  years  whether  they  have  paid  for  it  or  not. 

Mr.  GOODING.  No;  he  must  pay  for  the  land  in  full.  I  am  only 
asking  that  he  be  given  the  right  to  dispose  of  his  equity. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  don't  want  to  give  him  anything  more  than  an  op- 
portunity, that  is  all. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Well,  perhaps  I  misunderstand  you.  Yon  have  been 
sitting  licrc  for  a  day  or  two  yourself;  some  of  us  have  been  silling 
here  for  12  years  and  we  have 'had  people  come  before  us  of  all  kinds 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  237 

and  characters,  with  all  sorts  of  views,  and  what  I  wanted  to  im- 
press upon  you  was  the  difficulty  of  not  alone  converting  this  com- 
mittee, but  of  converting  434  Congressmen  and  96  Senators  to  get 
through  what  you  want,  so  you  must  make  our  task  as  easy  as  you 
can. 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  believe  this  committee  is  going  to  put  the  right 
spirit  into  this  bill,  because  you  are,  in  a  way,  responsible  to  the 
people.  You  are  going  to  give  the  people  a  fair  hearing,  but  when 
you  get  through  with  it  you  are  going  to  do  what  the  title  of  the  bill 
asks  you  to  do.  You  are  going  to  recognize  the  soldier. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Precisely.  But  let  us  get  right  back  to  that  proposi- 
tion, because  I  thought  you  laid  down  two  things  there  that  I  am 
in  sympathy  with.  I  have  been  a  homesteader;  I  know  conditions 
out  there;  but  I  also  know  what  you  have  got  to  do  to  get  any  sort 
of  legislation  through  Congress  here.  Now,  you  don't  propose  to  let 
them  out  of  paying  for  this,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  GOODIXG.  No;  I  thought  I  made  myself  clear.  All  I  want  to 
do  is  to  give  the  soldier  a  chance  to  dispose  of  his  equity.  The  holder 
of  the  contract  must  carry  out  the  provisions  to  the  end  with  the 
Government. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  was  the  criticism  you  have  of  the  overhead 
charges  against  the  men  ? 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  may  say  it  is  not  the  policy  of  the  Government 
in  the  administration  of  any  of  its  affairs  anywhere  to  make  a  direct 
charge  to  the  citizen  who  is  benefited  from  that  service.  The  cost  of 
administration  of  our  Government  and  all  of  its  branches,  as  I  under- 
stand it,  should  be  borne  by  all  of  the  people. 

Mr.  BAER.  I  think  I  can  make  this  a  little  more  clear.  I  have  been 
on  reclamation  projects,  and  have  been  a  civil  engineer  myself,  and 
I  have  seen  fellows  playing  lawn  tennis  and  monkeying  around  when 
there  wasn't  anything  to  do,  and  the  farmers  go  along  by  these  engi- 
neering camps — and  they  really  haven't  anything  to  do  at  certain 
times — and  these  farmers  see  them  out  there  and  they  get  discour- 
aged and  disheartened.  They  think  that  cost  is  being  added  all  the 
time  to  their  bill.  Now,  the  point  is  that  in  the  surveys  and  the  pre- 
liminary work,  and  up  to  the  time  the  farm  is  turned  over,  you  think 
the  Government  ought  to  pay  for  the  administrative  work,  the  engi- 
neering, and  all  that  work? 

Mr.  GOODING.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Now,  let  me  make  an  inquiry  here.  Of  course,  I  know 
that  Mr.  Davis,  as  director,  would  not  willingly  allow  his  employees 
to  go  out  and  resolve  themselves  into  lawn-tennis  parties  while  they 
are  carrying  on  the  work,  but  that  will  occur  undoubtedly  at  times : 
but  if  you  don't  make  the  fellow  who  is  benefited  by  it  pay  for  it, 
where  will  the  Government  have  as  good  a  check  on  it  as  it  will  to 
have  these  homesteaders,  some  of  these  reclamation  fellows,  protest 
to  Director  Davis  and  say :  "  Here  we  are  paying  the  bill,  and  your 
man,  John  Jones,  who  is  an  engineer,  is  out  here  playing  lawn 
tennis." 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  haven't  heard  of  anything  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  heard  it  just  now.  Mr.  Baer  just  now  has  told  us 
about  it. 

Mr.  GOODING.  Well,  possibly,  it  might  be  somewhere  outside  of  our 
section.  But  there  is  this  impression,  however,  that  there  is  so  much 


238  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

red  tape  connected  with  all  these  affairs  of  the  Government  that  it 
makes  it  very  expensive.  Now,  the  point  I  am  making  is  that  in  the 
administration  of  any  other  department  of  Government  you  have  not 
charged  direct  to  the  individual  for  it.  Now,  I  am  merely  asking  you 
to  give  the  soldier  the  same  treatment  that  you  give  in  every  other 
line  of  industry  in  this  country. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Then  the  point  you  make  is  that  the  administration 
of  the  law  after  the  initial  expenditure  has  been  made,  you  think  that 
ought  to  be  borne  by  the  Government  rather  than  by  the  home- 
steader? 

Mr.  GOODING.  The  cost  of  administration  up  to  the  time  the  proj- 
ect is  turned  over,  should  be  borne  by  the  Government.  What  I 
call  administration  is  Mr.  Davis's  work,  and  his  corps  of  engineers, 
his  consulting  engineers  and  the  cost  that  it  takes  to  put  the  project 
on  paper  before  actual  construction  is  commenced. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  mean  after  the  project  is  turned  over? 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  mean  before.  After  that  I  think  properly  they 
should  pay  the  maintenance  of  the  project;  yes.  You  understand 
what  I  mean,  Mr.  Davis  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  mean  the  Washington  end  of  it  ? 

Mr.  GOODING.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Director  Davis  and  his  Washington  City  force  is  not 
paid  by  reclamation  projects. 

Mr.  GOODING.  Yes,  they  are;  every  dollar  of  it. 

Mr.  BAER.  And  the  engineers  are  paid  by  them? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  The  engineer  and  the  inspector,  of  course,  that  is  par- 
ticularly associated  with  the  project.  I  don't  see  how  you  can  sepa- 
rate that  from  part  of  the  cost.  I  shouldn't  think  this  administra- 
tion could  be  paid  from  any  such  fund. 

Mr.  GOODING.  It  always  has  been.  That  is  the  policy  that  I  am 
bringing  up,  because  it  is  an  exception  to  the  rule.  This  is  the  only 
case  in  which  it  applies.  I  will  let  Mr.  Davis  take  care  of  that  when 
he  comes  before  you.  He  can  show  it  better  than  I  can.  I  want  to 
make  myself  clear,  however,  and  show  you  that  I  have  only  one 
thought  and  that  is  to  help  in  getting  the  right  kind  of  legislation. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Committeeman  Baer,  has  made,  I  think,  an  unfortu- 
nate remark.  I  am  hoping  that  he  will  correct  it  before  we  get 
through,  and  that  is  that,  under  the  Reclamation  Service,  men  are 
employed  as  engineers  and  other  Government  officials  on  the  reclama- 
tion projects,  and  that  they  have  used  part  of  the  Government  time 
for  tennis,  and  so  forth.  But  I  have  been  on  this  committee  for  sev- 
eral years  and  I  have  always  understood  that  never  existed,  that  the 
Government  Reclamation  Service  gets  full  value  from  the  men  they 
employ;  that  if  they  have  any  fun,  a  ball  game,  or  tennis,  and  so 
forth,  they  take  it  out  of  their  own  time  just  like  anybody  else  does, 
and  that  they  are  not  soldiering  on  the  Government.  Isn't  that 
your  experience? 

Mr.  GOODING.  We  have  a  very  high  regard  for  them  in  my  State. 
They  have  built  monuments  that  will  endure  to  the  end  of  time. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Do  they  play  lawn  tennis  at  times? 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  have  seen  them  play  lawn  tennis. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  During  working  hours. 

Mr.  GOODING.  No. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  239 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Well,  they  have  a  right  to  play  then. 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  think  they  are  human,  just  like  the  rest  of  us. 

Mr.  BAER.  I  will  withdraw  the  statement,  as  far  as  the  general 
proposition  goes,  but  there  are  times — and  I  said  it  rightfully  when 
I  made  the  statement — that  they  have  nothing  to  do  and  they  might 
play  tennis. 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  other  words,  you  don't  mean  now  to  state  before 
this  committee  that  is  the  regular  practice,  and  I  think  you  will  agree 
wtih  me  that  the  Reclamation  Service  is  one  of  the  most  efficient 
services  in  this  country,  and  that  the  men  perform  their  work  and 
give  to  the  Government  a  day's  labor,  a  day's  service,  when  they  are 
paid  for  it ;  they  give  a  full  return,  and  that  they  are  not  idling  their 
time  away. 

Mr.  BAER.  I  think  myself — I  have  been  unfamiliar  with  the  work 
of  this  committee,  and  I  think  it  is  a  little  strong  statement  to  make, 
but  I  know  the  engineers,  and  I  can  name  the  places  on  the  Yellow- 
stone project,  for  instance,  10  or  12  years  ago — I  don't  know  whether 
Mr.  Davis  was  connected  with  the  administration  of  the  Reclamation 
Service  then,  but  the  point  is  that  there  were  times  when  they  would 
have  to  go  out  and  give  a  few  levels  to  a  contractor  and  a  few  grades, 
and  then  we  would  get  off  and  we  didn't  have  anything  to  do.  We 
were  being  paid ;  but,  nevertheless,  we  did  it.  Now,  I  am  not  criticiz- 
ing that.  We  were  doing  our  duty,  and  we  didn't  have  anything  to 
do,  but  the  trouble  is  that  when  the  farmer  pays  directly  for  this,  he 
goes  along  and  sees  men,  even  after  4  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  playing 
lawn  tennis,  and  he  thinks  he  is  paying  for  all  that ;  and  if  the  Gov- 
ernment is  paying  for  it  directly,  he  never  seems  to  realize  that  he  has 
to  eventually  pay  it  himself  anyway. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  think  it  is  perfectly  all  right  for  the  Government 
to  pay  for  lawn  tennis  parties. 

Mr.  BAER.  There  are  hundreds  of  positions  here  in  your  depart- 
ment any  morning,  10  or  11  o'clock,  where  stenographers  are  not 
busy,  but  that  isn't  their  fault,  if  they  haven't  anything  to  do. 

Mr.  BAER.  I  have  heard  that  statement  made  against  the  Reclama- 
tion Service  now  for  the  first  time,  and  individually  I  have  never 
heard  yet  where  the  officials,  those  under  the  employ  of  the  Govern- 
ment, were  soldiering  on  the  Government  and  getting  paid  for  doing 
things  that  they  did  in  the  way  of  pleasure,  and  trying  to  get  the 
Government — in  other  words,  grafting  on  the  Government. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Why  not  let  the  governor  conclude,  gentlemen? 

Mr.  GOODING.  The  last  suggestion  that  I  want  to  make  comes,  as 
I  believe  I  said  from  the  fact  that  you  take  the  young  soldier  and 
tie  him  up  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  for  10  years.  I  think  pos- 
sibly I  have  made  myself  clear  on  that,  that  he  ought  to  be  given  the 
right,  after  he  has  spent  three  years  on  that  project,  to  sell  out  and 
leave.  I  don't  want  the  boy  that  goes  out  to  make  this  country  a 
bigger  and  a  better  country  to  feel  that  he  is  tied  up  with  the  Gov- 
ernment for  10  years,  or  anyone  else,  without  any  right  to  dispose 
of  his  equity,  unless  it  is  approved  by  some  Government  official. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  But  he  is  doing  something  with  more  than  his  labor. 
He  is  doing  something  with  about  $5,000  that  the  Government  has 
contributed. 

133319—19 16 


240  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  GOODING.  The  Government  has  not  given  him  a  dollar ;  oh,  no  I 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Under  this  bill  it  is  provided  that  the  Government 
shall  give  him  something  in  the  Avay  of  land  and  houses,  farms  and 
improvements. 

Mr.  GOODING.  But  he  is  paying  for  it. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  But  under  your  plan  he  hasn't  paid  for  it  when  he 
sells  it. 

Mr.  GOODING.  But  his  contract  with  the  Government  holds  good. 
Somebody  must  fulfill  that  contract.  He  is  only  selling  his  equity 
at  the  end  of  three  years.  I  want  to  give  him  that  right  to  dispose 
of  it  as  he  sees  fit  after  three  years. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  We  are  not  passing  bills  that  will  cost  the  Government 
$10.000,000,000  or  $20,000,000,000  for  the  benefit  of  some  one  other 
than  the  soldier. 

Mr.  GOODING.  The  soldier  has  benefited,  but  some  of  them  may  find 
it  impossible  to  continue  upon  the  farm.  I  want  to  give  that  fellow 
a  chance  to  dispose  of  his  equity. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  He  may  have  benefited  by  selling  a  couple  of  years  of 
his  own  time  and  gotten  a  profit  on  the  improvements.  We  want  to 
avoid  that  speculative  feature. 

Mr.  GOODING.  But  no  man  is  going  to  take  up  the  speculative  end 
of  it  if  you  make  it  three  years.  I  don't  want  to  see  you  pass  a  bill 
here  at  all  unless  the  soldier  accepts  it  in  the  right  spirit.  I  think  it 
would  be  an  unfortunate  thing  for  the  whole  country  if  you  do. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  objection  that  would  be  urged  to  the  early 
transfer  on  the  floor  would  be  that  it  would  be  only  a  bill  to  permit 
the  sale  of  a  homestead. 

Mr.  GOODING.  You  haven't  seen  it  in  practical  operation,  because 
in  my  State  that  does  not  hold  good.  Many  people  that  pioneered 
that  country  are  still  living  upon  their  homesteads. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Don't  you  recognize,  Governor,  a  little  difference  be- 
tween a  project  where  the  Government  is  proposing  to  spend  four 
or  five  thousand  dollars  on  it  and  the  project  where  the  homesteader 
hoes  his  own  row  and  pays  it  all  himself? 

Mr.  GOODING.  You  are  not  giving  the  soldier  anything.  Let's  get 
away  from  that  idea.  You  are  charging  him  the  full  rate  of  interest 
for  everything.  You  are  only  extending  him  credit ;  that  is  all. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Do  you  know  of  any  place  in  Idaho  where  men  can  buy 
an  improved  farm  on  40  years'  time  at  4  per  cent  interest  ? 

Mr.  GOODING.  No. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  have  a  job  while  he  is  improving  it? 

Mr.  GOODING.  No. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Then  we  are  giving  him  something. 

Mr.  GOODING.  Yes;  you  are  giving  him  an  opportunity;  of  course 
I  agree  with  that, 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Gov.  Gooding,  this  might  not  be  so  serious  an 
objection,  it  would  seem  to  me,  so  far  as  the  land  itself  is  concerned, 
but  you  are  advancing  $1,200  for  improvements  and  $800  for  stock 
and  'implements.  Now,  if  this  man  is  to  be  permitted  to  sell  indis- 
criminately to  any  man,  how  do  you  know,  how  does  the  Government 
know — what  sort  of  care  these  things  are  going  to  have  after  they 
pass  out  of  his  hands?  That  is  one  objection,  it  seems  to  me. 

Mr.  GOODING.  They  would  have  the  SIUMP  supervision  that  they  have 
had  before.  They  might  get  a  better  tenant. 


HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS.  241 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  They  have  passed  on  the  man  in  the  first  place,  but 
if  he  sells  indiscriminately,  they  could  not  pass  on  his  successors. 

Mr.  GOODIXG.  A  provision  in  the  bill  by  which  the  Secretary  would 
pass  upon  this  change  might  be  all  right. 

Mr.  BAER.  I  think  that  is  already  in  there. 

Mr.  GOODING.  He  ought  to  have  the  right  to  sell,  the  right  to  lease, 
and  all  those  things. 

Mr.  BAER.  As  I  understand  it,  Governor,  there  is  a  provision  of 
that  kind  in  the  bill.  The  objection  to  that,  as  I  understand  it,  is  the 
red  tape  here  in  Washington.  If  we  could  have  some  kind  of  quick 
action  on  those  applications,  would  that  answer  the  objection? 

Mr.  GOODING.  Yes;  that  is  the  objection.  And  I  still  want  to  hold 
to  my  thought,  if  you  are  going  to  compel  him,  after  he  has  put  in 
3  years  there,  if  he*  has  still  got  to  ask  this  Government  just  what  he 
can  do  after  his  three  years  of  hard  work,  there  isn't  much  of  a 
spirit  of  independence  in  it, 

Mr.  HERSMAX.  In  my  understanding,  you  want  to  make  it  as  easy 
as  possible  on  the  soldier  so  that  he  can  succeed  on  this  proposition  ? 

Mr.  GOODING.  Yes. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  The  easier  you  make  it  for  the  soldier,  the  more 
likely  he  is  to  succeed  ? 

Mr.  GOODING.  Yes. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Now,  I  can  see,  as  I  glance  over  this  bill,  from 
my  experience  in  the  West,  that  we  occasionally  have  failures  in 
crops,  and  it  is  very  likely  to  be  so  on  some  of  these  projects.  Now, 
if  the  soldier  has  all  of  his  money  invested  in  machinery  and  in  stock, 
and  there  should  come  a  failure  of  his  crops,  and  the  Government 
doesn't  provide  for  taking  care  of  the  soldier,  making  it  easy  on  the 
soldier,  the  soldier  will  either  have  to  give  up  what  he  has  already 
done — three  or  four  years  of  work — or  he  will  have  to  sell  out.  Now, 
I  understand  that  your  contention  is  that  you  want  to  make  it  as 
easy  as  possible  for  that  soldier  to  succeed  on  that  proposition. 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  want  to  give  him  a  chance.  I  want  to  give  him  3 
years'  trial  on  the  farm.  Now,  I  think  he  is  going  to  stick;  75  per 
cent  of  them  will,  possibly  more.  But  if  there  are  any  who  can't 
stick.  I  want  to  give  him  a  chance  so  he  can  dispose  of  his  farm  to 
advantage  and  sell  it.  I  don't  want  to  see  those  years  wasted. 

Mr.  HERSMAX.  My  experience  has  been  that  the  original  one  that 
takes  up  a  proposition  of  this  kind — that  90  per  cent  of  them  give  up 
their  proposition,  90  per  cent  of  them  at  least  in  California,  and  it 
goes  into  the  hands  of  a  second  class  of  people,  and  then  afterwards 
part  of  them  give  it  up  and  it  goes  at  last  into  the  hands  of  a  third 
class;  and  the  reason  these  people  have  to  give  up  their  lands  is  be- 
cause they  can't  make  the  payments  that  are  imposed  by  private 
parties  on  these  new  settlers. 

Mr.  GOODIXG.  That  doesn't  hold  good  in  my  State. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  But  I  believe  that  if  the  Government,  as  you  say, 
gives  a  soldier  an  opportunity,  a  large  opportunity  to  make  good  he 
M  ill  make  good. 

Mr.  Goomxc;.  He  can't  make  good  if  you  tie  him  down,  if  you  ask 
the  impossible,  which  to  my  mind  you  are  doing  in  this  bill.  You 
must  make  it  easier. 


242  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  bill  provides  that  the  transfer  can  be  made,  but 
it  must  be  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  That  is 
simply  a  formality  to  keep  in  touch  with  the  entrymen. 

Mr.  GOODING.  There  isn't  the  independence  about  it  that  I  would 
like  to  see.  I  don't  think  the  Government  is  running  any  risk  as 
long  as  the  title  to  all  the  soldier  possesses  is  in  the  Government,  and 
those  who  succeed  him  would  have  to  pay  in  fully. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  theory  of  this  bill  is  that  the  man  is  going 
to  be  a  picked  man,  and  before  he  is  permitted  to  go  on  the  project  his 
adaptability  to  the  soil  is  going  to  be  examined  into  by  the  Secre- 
tary, and  I  think  there  would  be  objections  to  waiving  that  right 
after  a  period  of  three  years,  and  there  should  be  the  choice  of  selec- 
tion left  after  the  three-year  period. 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  am  merely  trying  to  make  him  a  pretty  independ- 
ent American  citizen.  That  is  my  idea  in  connection  with  it.  and 
that  is  what  he  is  going  to  want,  and  that  is  what  the  people  are 
going  to  want  for  him.  And  that  is  the  thought  that  I  have,  Mr. 
Chairman,  in  connection  wTith  this  bill. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  appreciate  3rour  position. 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  think  you  are  needlessly  alarmed  at  the  thought 
that  the  Government  is  going  to  lose  something.  The  Government 
is  going  to  have  three  years  of  his  work,  in  which  he  is  going  to  make 
this  country  a  bigger  and  a  better  country.  Don't  be  alarmed  about 
it.  Give  him  some  independence  in  connection  with  this  great  work. 

Mr.  SMITH.  What  do  you  think  of  the  suggestion  made  by  a 
member  of  the  committee  that  part  of  the  wages  of  the  soldiers 
employed  on  projects  be  withheld  and  applied  on  the  price? 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  can  not  agree  to  that.  That  is  the  spirit  that  I 
want  to  see  left  out  of  this  bill. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Wouldn't  you  think  that  the  original  purchaser 
ought  to  have  repaid  the  $800,  for  instance,  for  stock  and  machinery 
before  he  is  permitted  to  sell  indiscriminately? 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  think  that  is  true;  yes.     I  would  agree  to  that. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  And  the  bill  provides  that  he  has  five  years  in 
which  to  pay,  so  at  least  you  would  say  he  should  repay  that? 

Mr.  GOODING.  Yes ;  it  would  be  all  right  to  provide  that  if  he  sold 
put  he  should  pay  up  his  loan  to  the  Government  made  to  him  for 
improvements  and  live  stock. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  don't  think,  Governor,  that  we  are  merely 
holding  out  some  lure  or  will-o'-the-wisp  to  him? 

Mr.  GOODING.  No ;  I  do  not.  I  am  sure  that  no  one  could  be  more 
sincere,  more  earnest  than  you  gentlemen  are  in  this  matter.  I  am 
sure  that  your  desire  is  only  to  help  the  soldier  all  you  can. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  has  been  stated  in  circulars  sent  around  that 
we  are  holding  out  some  lure,  some  will-o'-the-wisp,  some  gold  brick, 
to  the  soldier.  Do  you  feel  that  this  is  a  practical  proposition  1 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  think  there  isn't  any  question  about  it  being  prac- 
tical. It  will  be  practical  in  every  State  in  the  Union.  The  Gov- 
ernment has  got  to  take  up  this  great  work  of  reclaiming  these  lands 
some  time  or  another,  and  I  think  it  is  a  good  time  to  commence, 
and  there  is  no  question  about  it. 

Mr.  VAILE.  What  do  you  think,  Governor,  of  (he  suggestion  made 
here  by  the  representative  of  the  grange,  that  we  are  doing  too  much 
for  the  agricultural  business,  and  that  it  is  unfair  to  the  farmer? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  243 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  can't  agree  with  that  at  all.  I  think  we  must  go 
on.  It  is  your  duty  to  legislate  for  the  future.  This  country  has 
taken  care  of  itself  pretty  well  in  the  past.  There  are  vital  ques- 
tions before  this  Government  which  must  be  considered  seriously, 
and  the  land  question,  to  my  mind,  is  the  biggest  question  of  all  that 
confronts  the  American  people  to-day.  This  country  must  feed  itself 
just  as  long  as  it  can. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Another  objection  that  has  been  urged  is  that  this 
measure  will  increase  the  present  scarcity  of  farm  labor.  Have  you 
any  views  on  that  ? 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  hope  there  will  always  be  a  reasonable  scarcity  of 
labor.  I  hope  we  will  never  have  the  bread  line  and  soup  houses 
again  in  America  that  we  have  had  in  the  past,  and  it  is  up  to  you 
gentlemen  to  legislate  wisely  to  see  that  we  don't  have  them,  because 
you  will  hear  more  bombs 'then,  and  these  anarchists  that  we  have 
in  the  country  will  become  the  leaders  of  the  mob  with  the  torch. 
It  is  the  first  great  duty  of  the  Government  to  see  that  there  is  work 
for  those  that  are  willing  to  work.  Again  I  want  to  say  I  hope 
there  will  always  be  a  reasonable  scarcity  of  labor;  that  there  will 
always  be  a  chance  for  a  man  who  wants  to  work  to  sell  his  labor. 
I  hope  the  time  will  never  come  when  it  will  be  otherwise. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  May  I  ask  the  Governor  one  question?  Governor, 
do  you  think  that  the  average  soldier  could  succeed  under  the  pro- 
visions of  this  bill  in  a  settlement  ? 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  am  afraid  that  he  could  not  meet  the  initial  pay- 
ment. I  do  not  believe  the  young  man  could  save  enough  out  of  his 
wages  working  on  any  of  the  projects  to  make  the  initial  payment 
as  is  provided  in  this  bill. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  You  have  had  large  experience  in  this  work. 
Would  you.  as  a  young  man,  undertake  to  go  into  a  project  like  this 
if  you  have  the  money  ?  And  under  the  provisions  of  this  bill  ? 

Mr.  GOODING.  Well,  I  .don't  know.  It  looks  hard  to  me,  as  I  see 
the  situation  now  after  years  of  experience  pioneering  on  irigation 
projects  and  seeing  the  ups  and  downs.  I  want  to  see  the  Govern- 
ment make  the  lines  easy  so  the  soldier  can  succeed.  You  know 
something  about  it  out  there,  Mr.  Mays. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Yes,  we  have  seen  it. 

Mr.  GOODING.  There  comes  sickness  and  a  hundred  other  things  to 
contend  with.  The  homesteader  can  have  all  kinds  of  bad  luck. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Just  a  moment.  About  that  initial  payment  at  5 
per  cent.  That  would  be  on  $5,000,  $250,  and  that  would  comply 
with  your  idea.  Of  course,  as  to  the  improvements,  he  may  borrow 
$1,200,  provided  he  has  one-quarter  of  the  value  of  the  improve- 
ments. He  would  have  to  put  up  25  per  cent  of  the  $1,200  for  im- 
provements. Then  should  he  want  money  for  stock  purposes,  he 
could  borrow  up  to  $800,  not  exceeding  60  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  the 
live  stock,  so  he  would  have  to  have  40  per  cent  of  the  money  for  live 
stock. 

Mr.  GOODINO.  I  want  to  make  the  point  that  it  is  impossible  for 
the  young  soldier  to  make  that  much  working  upon  any  project.  He 
can 'not  save  that  much.  He  may  have  friends  that  will  help  him, 
but  you  are  proposing  legislation  for  the  fellow  that  hasn't  a  dollar 
to-day  to  start  with. 


244  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  BENTHEM.  Governor,  why  do  you  not  qualify  your  last  state- 
ment by  saying  that  if  he  is  in  his  own  community,  surrounded  by 
his  former  neighbors,  he  would  stand  a  better  chance  of  being  helped  ? 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  do  not  want  that  in  it.  You  will  destroy  the  spirit 
of  the  bill  if  you  do.  The  soldier  is  a  mighty  independent  American 
citizen  at  the  present  time.  Let  us  encourage  that  independence. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  It  has  been  pointed  out  here,  Governor,  that  this 
25  per  cent  on  improvements  might  be  contributed  by  his  own  labor, 
so  that  we  lend  only  what  he  must  invest  in  his  horses,  cows,  and 
machinery.  That  brings  it  down  to  a  smaller  sum. 

Mr.  GOODING.  But  he  has  got  to  live  all  this  time.    He  has  got  a 

i  i     »  i    •  l  •  j     i  i  •  •          j      .  i    •      i  & 


hundred  things  to  buy  in  order  to  start  housekeeping,  just  think  of 
it.  He  is  building  from  the  ground  up  without  a  dollar.  Now,  what 
is  he  going  to  do?  You  want  to  take  care  of  that  kind  of  a  boy,  but 
he  must  pay  for  his  living  all  the  time.  If  you  are  going  to  help  that 
kind  of  a  young  soldier  and  that  is  what  you  are  proposing  to  do  in 
this  bill,  its  provisions  must  be  made  easier. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  He  may  or  may  not  have  been  a  householder  be- 
fore he  goes  onto  this  project. 

.Mr.  GOODING.  We  should  encourage  him  to  be  a  householder,  and  I 
hope  you  will  put  that  provision  in  the  bill,  by  which  you  give  a  mar- 
ried soldier  the  first  chance.  I  would  dislike,  and  I  am  sure  that 
you  gentlemen  woujd  dislike,  to  feel  that  you  have  kept  any  young 
fellow  who  wanted  to  take  advantage  of  this  opportunity  from  get- 
ting married  and  making  a  better  citizen  of  himself  and  providing 
a  home. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Don't  you  think,  Governor,  that  these  young  men  who 
will  go  on  these  projects  and  will  have  employment  for  a  year  or 
two  at  $4  a  day  would  be  able  to  save  a  few  hundred  dollars  ? 

Mr.  GOODING.  He  is  going  to  need  it  to  buy  a  plow  and  a  harrow 
and  a  team  and  a  hundred  other  things  that  you  don't  provide  for — 
fencing  and  feed  and  everything  else. 

Mr.  SMITH.  You  would  rather  do  business  with  a  man  who  is  re- 
liable and  industrious  and  who  had  saved  his  money,  even  if  it  took 
him  four  or  five  years  to  do  it,  rather  than  the  man  who  had  nothing, 
wouldn't  you? 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  don't  want  to  see  you  do  anything  that  you  are 
discriminating  in  at  all.  There  are  a  lot  of  good  young  fellows  that 
do  not  save  much  until  they  marry  and  settle  down  in  this  life,  and 
yet  at  the  same  time  they  ought  to  be  given  an  opportunity.  What 
I  am  objecting  to  is  the  initial  payment  on  the  land  to  the  Govern- 
ment. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  agree  with  you  on  that. 

Mr.  GOODING.  And  the  Government  is  perfectly  safe,  for  you  are 
going  to  borrow  money  for  less  than  4  per  cent,  if  you  please, 
especially  if  you  take  the  tax  off.  I  feel  it  was  a  mistake  to  have 
taxed  bonds.  At  least,  that  is  the  situation  as  I  see  it  in  the  West. 

Mr.  RAKER.  May  I  ask  you  if  this  is  your  position ;  that  you  be- 
lieve in  fee-simple  ownership  of  our  homes? 

Mr.  GOODING.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Any  other  system  is  detrimental  to  our  country. 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  agree  with  you ;  I  want  to  continue,  as  I  say.  those 
conditions  and  principles  that  have  built  up  our  great  citizenship  in 
America. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  245 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  believe  that  the  only  restriction  placed  upon 
these  men  should  be  the  sufficient  guaranty  of  repayment  to  the 
Government  of  the  money  advanced  ? 

Mr.  GOODIXG.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  self-determination  of  the  right  of  transfer  from 
place  to  place,  or  moving  from  place  to  place,  or  to  sell  to  be  left  to 
the  individual  American  citizen? 

Mr.  GOODIXG.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Any  other  spirit  makes  tenancy  and  makes  them 
simply  under  the  guardianship  of  the  Government. 

Mr.  GOODIXG.  You  want  to  get  away  from  it  just  as  far  as  you 
can.  and  safeguard  the  Government  at  the  same  time. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Your  theory,  Governor,  from  your  experience  in  the 
YVe.-t.  is  that  any  system  that  will  make  a  tenancy  or  a  guardianship 
over  these  men  would  be  detrimental  to  them  and  to  the  country? 

Mr.  GOODIXG.  It  would  destroy  the  object  which  is  in  view.  There 
is  no  question  about  that.  I  want  to  see  it  start  right,  because  I  think 
we  need  to  do  those  things  all  the  time.  I  don't  want  to  see  anything 
done  that  would  tend  to  give  anybody  an  opportunity  to  break  down 
that  spirit. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well,  you  are  driving  at  nails  that  I  want  to  see  driven 
hard  and  clear  before  we  get  through. 

Now,  on  the  further  matter  after  the  question  of  collection,  is  it 
your  experience  from  your  observation,  that  the  man  would  do 
better  by  selecting  what  he  wants  to  do  if  he  wants  to  go  to  farming, 
or  whether  you  should  have  a  committee  to  tell  him  what  he  shall  do 
for  the  future?  I  want  your  judgment  on  that  now. 

Mr.  GOODIXG.  I  can't  agree  with  that  at  all.  I  am  for  the  old- 
fashioned  spirit  of  independence,  myself,  that  helps  to  make  the  man. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  it  your  view  that  a  commission  or  an  authorization 
to  anybody  to  determine  that  this  soldier  should  go  on  a  farm  and 
another  should  not ;  do  you  think  that  should  be  the  plan,  or  should 
it  be  left  to  the  individual  soldier  whether  or  not  he  wants  to  farm, 
and,  if  he  wants  to  comply  with  the  rules  and  regulations  and  shows 
a  willingness  and  disposition  and  is  an  honorably  discharged  soldier, 
that  he  should  have  that  right? 

Mr.  GOODIXG.  I  agree  to  that,  but  the  man  who  goes  on  the  projects 
and  helps  to  construct  them,  and  becomes  a  party  to  them,  should 
be  given  the  first  chance. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  know,  but  I  am  asking. 

Mr.  GOODIXG.  Xow,  I  hope  the  Secretary  will  not  be  too  searching 
in  his  inspection  as  to  whether  I  am  qualified  to  do  certain  things  or 
not.  I  don't  altogether  like  that,  because  I  have  seen  all  kinds 
of  people,  if  you  please,  come  to  my  project,  or  at  least  settle  in  my 
part  of  Idaho,  and  make  good,  from  all  lines  of  industry,  all  kind's 
of  business,  and  some  of  them  have  failed— that  is  to  be  expected. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  you  want  to  give  in  legislation  of  this  kind  to  the 
soldier  boys  who  have  got  the  initiative,  the  will,  and  the  determi- 
nation to  go  there  and  to  make  their  homes  themselves — you  want 
to  give  him  the  right  to  do  that  as  he  wants  to? 

Mr.  GOODIXG.  I  want  to  give  the  soldier  as  much  independence 
in  this  bill  as  can  be  put  into  it.  I  like  that  spirit.  That  is  what 
I  am  talking  about,  the  human  interest  you  must  have  all  the  way 
through  if  you  are  going  to  succeed. 


246  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

Now,  I  hope  that  I  have  made  the  committee  feel  that  I  am  right 
in  spirit,  any  way.  I  merely  wish  to  help  to  get  something  out  that 
we  are  going  to  be  proud  of  later. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  wish  you  could  put  that  same  spirit  into  about  425 
other  voters  in  this  House. 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  feel  that  the  House  will  be  all  right.  I  am  sure 
that  all  want  to  give  the  soldier  a  chance. 

Now,  there  is  just  one  other  thing  that  I  am  going  to  ask  you 
to  do  for  the  soldiers,  if  I  may.  Don't  understand  me  that  I  am 
asking  you  to  give  him  anything.  Our  Government  is  appropriating 
hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  for  roads.  I  understand  that  the 
Government  is  joining  with  the  States  and  offering  to  put  up  half 
in  the  cost  of  construction.  In  some  States  they  are  building  hard 
surface  roads  that  cost  from  $20,000  to  $30,000  a  mile.  Now,  here 
is  something  that  I  would  like  to  see  you  do :  Build  the  roads  on  Gov- 
ernment projects.  It  need  not  be  an  expensive  road.  Say  a  graded 
road  on  each  section  and  half  section  line,  with  a  gravel  or  crushed- 
rock  surface.  It  may  cost  something  like  $4,000  a  mile.  Your  bill 
provides  for  road  building  and  I  anticipate  that  it  is  going  to  be 
charged  up  to  the  homesteader  under  the  bill,  unless  you  make  some 
provision  for  this  construction. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  probably  don't  realize  it  so  much  as  the  rest  of 
us  do,  and  as  I  have,  and  as  "Mr.  Ferris  has,  sitting  around  this  table 
for  the  past  10  years,  but  it  is  the  hardest  possible  thing  on  God's 
earth  to  pass  any  constructive,  beneficial  legislation,  to  bring  it  out 
of  the  House  of  Representatives.  The  East,  and  the  North,  and  the 
South  have  been  drenched  with  Pinchotism  and  conservatism,  and 
ideas  of  conserving  everything  for  future  generations,  and  they  think 
it  is  just  like  taking  a  left  lung  and  a  right  eye  out  of  Uncle  Sam 
for  a  person  to  go  on  and  get  a  home  out  of  this  God-forsaken  land 
that  there  is  left,  and  we  have  an  awful  hard  time  to  convince  these 
people  and  to  pass  any  kind  of  a  bill  through ;  and  if  we  wait  to  get 
an  ideal  measure  we  will  never  get  anywhere. 

Now,  I  would  like  to  pass  a  motion  now  to  report  this  bill  out  of 
here  and  go  ahead  and  do  the  best  we  possibly  can  with  it,  and  amend 
it  and  get  it  through  in  the  best  possible  way  and  take  chances  on 
amending  it  in  the  future.  That  is  the  only  way  we  will  get  any- 
where with  it.  We  have  got  to  start  somewhere  and  do  the  best  we 
can. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  through  with  your  statement,  Governor? 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  am  through,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  we  have  the  governor  of  Oklahoma.  Is  he 
in  the  city  ? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  He  will  be  very  happy  to  appear  to-morrow,  Mr. 
Chairman ;  he  has  gone  to  welcome  the  soldiers  home. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then  all  we  have  remaining  is  the  governor  of 
Oklahoma,  and  Director  Davis,  of  the  Reclamation  Service,  and  a  few 
Congressmen  who  have  expressed  a  wish  to  be  heard. 

Mr.  GOODING.  I  would  like  to  thank  the  committee  for  the  privilege 
accorded  me. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  thank  yon  very  much,  Governor.  We  will  ad- 
journ until  10  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 

(Whereupon,  at  12.30  o'clock  p.  m..  the  committee  adjourned 
until  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  Friday,  June  6,  1919.) 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  247 

COMMITTEE  ON  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS, 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Friday,  June  6, 1919. 

The  committee  met  at  10.15  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Nicholas  J.  Sinnott 
(chairman)  presiding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  we  have  here  Gov. 
Robertson,  of  the  State  of  Oklahoma,  who  will  make  a  statement  this 
morning. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  J.  B.  A.  ROBERTSON,   GOVERNOR  OF  THE 
STATE  OF  OKLAHOMA. 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
don't  know  that  I  ought  to  take  up  your  time;  there  are  so  many 
other  men  who  are  better  qualified  to  speak  on  the  subject  than  my- 
self ;  but  I  am  so  interested  in  the  measure  that  is  now  being  consid- 
ered that  I  feel,  in  justice  to  the  soldiers,  and  to  my  State  especially, 
that  I  should  let  you  know  how  the  people  generally  down  there  feel 
about  this  matter. 

I  am  frank  to  say  that  in  the  beginning  when  this  subject  was  first 
broached  it  did  not  appeal  to  me  very  strongly,  because  we  did  not 
understand  it,  but  after  having  read  repeatedly  some  of  the  details  of 
the  bill  and  some  of  the  plans  of  the  committee,  we  are  very  much 
interested  in  it. 

Oklahoma  sent  many  thousand  soldiers,  and  a  good  majority  of 
them  are  farmers,  and  I  have  had  occasion  to  talk  with  many  of  them 
who  have  returned,  and  I  might  say,  parenthetically,  that  I  am  in- 
terested in  this  matter  from  two  or  three  viewpoints.  First,  of  course, 
I  want  to  see  the  agricultural  interests  of  the  State  developed.  Nat- 
urally, there  would  be  some  tendency  among  the  soldiers  to  want 
something  better  than  they  have  had  in  the  past.  Most  of  them 
went  away  boys  and  came  back  men.  And  I  have  discovered  a  large 
number  of  them  who  went  off  the  farm  and  are  not  specially  inter- 
ested in  the  farm  any  more,  because  unless  they  get  some  help,  such 
as  is  designed  by  this  bill,  they  will  have  to  go  back  in  the  capacity 
of  ordinary  laborers,  and  that  does  not  appeal  to  them.  In  our 
State  we  have  three  or  four  classes  of  land — and  I  am  free  to  say 
that  it  is  all  good  land,  but  it  is  so  situated,  for  instance,  in  McCur- 
tain  County,  we  have  a  large  area  of  what  is  commonly  called  cut- 
over  land.  It  is  not  cut-over  land  of  large  forests  like  they  have 
in  Michigan  and  Wisconsin,  but  smaller  trees,  and  it  is  the  most 
fertile  section  of  the  State.  The  great  difficulty  we  find  in  develop- 
ing that  is  that  a  single  man — I  mean  a  single  family — will  go  in 
four  or  five,  or  six  or  seven  miles  away  from  civilization,  so  to  speak, 
and  try  to  hew  out  a  home  all  alone.  If  we  could  get  100  or  200  hun- 
dred families  to  go  in  there  and  obtain  a  home  of  their  own,  and 
have  some  cooperation  and  assistance  from  the  Government  or  the 
State,  it  would  make  an  ideal  community,  and  in  a  short  time  it 
would  be  among  the  best  land  in  the  State. 

Then  we  have  what  is  known  as  "  Boggy  Valley  "  land  in  Coal  and 
Atoka  Counties,  owned  largely  by  the  'Indians,  segregated  lands, 
and  that  land  likewise  has  been  inaccessible. 


248  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

In  the  western  part  of  the  State,  sometimes  called  the  semiarid 
portion  of  the  country — but  the  wheat  is  that  high  [indicating]  mis 
year  on  it  just  the  same — it  will  grow  35  or  40  bushels  to  the  acre, 
depending,  of  course,  on  the  season — but  the  State  owns  there  in 
one  body  school  land  to  the  extent  of  something  like  350,000  acres, 
and  another  tract  adjoining  it  of  something  like  250,000  acres,  and 
I  think  there  would  be  no  difficulty  with  the  bill,  as  I  understand  it 
now,  and  with  the  aid  that  would  be  given  the  soldiers  by  the  State 
and  the  Government  combined,  to  develop  these  tracts  to  a  high  state 
of  cultivation  in  a  very  short  time. 

Now,  this  is  not  reclamation  work  at  all,  as  I  understand  it,  but 
it  is  simply  putting  these  men  in  a  position  to  obtain  homes  for 
themselves. 

I  find  also  in  discussing  this  matter  with  my  people  that  they  did 
not  understand  the  first  plan  that  was  submitted,  and  for  that  reason 
they  felt  that  it  called  for  a  large  appropriation  on  the  part  of  the 
State.  We  had  the  matter  up  in  a  recent  session  of  the  legislature, 
and  while  they  are  all  interested  in  securing  homes  for  the  soldier, 
yet  on  account  of  the  finances  of  our  State,  we  did  not  feal  justified 
in  going  ahead  and  making  a  large  appropriation  until  the  Federal 
Government  had  blazed  the  way.  The  Government  had  not  done  it 
at  that  time.  I  am  sure  that  you  will  find  hearty  cooperation  on 
the  part  of  our  State  with  the"  Federal  Government  in  this  enter- 
prise. 

Now,  I  have  not  heard  any  valid  objection,  except,  perhaps,  certain 
organizations  of  farmers  that  think  that  the  Government  will  al- 
tempt  to  put  these  extra  men  into  competition  with  them,  and  that  is 
a  very  short-sighted  idea,  to  say  the  least.  There  can't  be  too  much 
production  in  agriculture,  as  I  see  it,  and  one  of  the  great  troubles 
that  confronts  us  in  that  new  State  is  the  increase  in  tenantry.  We 
want  to  stop  that  if  possible,  and  to  that  end  I  suggested  to  the 
recent  legislature  that  we  attempt  to  correct  it  now,  and  we  did 
establish  what  is  known  as  the  home-ownership  law,  by  which  a  man 
with  the  proper  character  and  reputation  and  recommendations  as 
to  ability  and  integrity  and  honesty,  and  so  on,  can  borrow  in  our 
State  the  full  amount — 100  per  cent,  if  you  please —  on  land  to  build 
a  home — make  a  home  out  of  it.  That  is  to  say,  out  of  the  permanent 
school  fund  we  will  loan  50  per  cent  of  the  appraised  value,  and  if 
he  is  the  right  kind  of  a  man  we  will  loan  him  an  additional  50  per 
cent  out  of  the  special  home-ownership  fund,  and  out  of  this  special 
home-ownership  fund  we  can  go  a  long  ways  to  cooperate  with  the. 
Government  in  this  matter.  We  are  very  anxious  not  only  to  re- 
claim the  land,  but  to  reclaim  these  soldier  boys  who  are  coming  back, 
because,  I  regret  to  say,  that  in  conversation  with  many  of  them  I 
find  that  since  they  went  away  from  home,  from  the  farm,  and  have 
seen  the  bright  lights  of  the  world,  so  to  speak,  they  are  just  a  little 
bit  slow  about  talking  of  the  farm  and  the  drudgery  connected  with 
it.  unless  it  can  be  in  the  capacity  of  owner  of  the  land ;  and  I  hope 
this  committee  can  find  it  within  its  power  to  work  out  some  scheme 
such  as  is  embodied  in  this  bill  whereby  these  soldiers  can  be  taken 
care  of.  I  have  appointed  a  special  committee  to  work  in  conjunc- 
tion with  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  and  they  are  busy  now  on  it. 
They  would  be  glad  to  come  here  and  submit  figures  as  to  the  number 
of  acres  and  as  to  what  the  State  will  do  in  regard  to  this  matter. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  249 

I  regret  that  I  am  not  in  a  position,  not  having  heard  any  of  your 
discussions  and  not  having  had  time  to  study  the  details  of  this  bill, 
to  go  into  it  more  at  length,  but  I  do  say  this,  gentlemen,  that  it  is  a 
matter  of  great  importance  and  interest  to  Oklahoma — it  must  be 
to  all  the  other  States.  When  the  matter  was  first  broached  and 
they  talked  about  reclaiming  hundreds  of  thousands  of  acres  of  land, 
unproductive  land,  it  did  not  appeal  to  me  at  all,  but  with  the  land 
that  I  have  in  mind  and  with  a  little  help  from  the  Government  and 
the  State,  these  men  can  be  put  to  work  and  they  will  make  homes 
for  themselves.  They  are  naturally  farmers,  most  of  them.  I  think 
fully  75  per  cent  of  these  90,000  boys  that  went  from  Oklahoma  came 
from  the  farm  originally,  and  we  wrant  them  to  go  back  on  the  farm. 
Tenantry  is  on  the  increase  in  Oklahoma,  and  I  presume  it  is  else- 
where also,  and  that  is  something  that  we  must  find  a  remedy  for,  and 
this  is  one  of  the  things  that  will  help  to  solve  that  problem.  You 
anchor  a  man  to  a  piece  of  land,  make  a  home  owner  out  of  him,  and 
he  is  a  better  citizen  always,  and  naturally  we  ought  to  give  considera- 
tion to  any  movement  that  has  such  an  object  in  view. 

Xow.  that  is  about  all  I  have  to  say,  gentlemen.  I  thank  you 
very  kindly. 

The  CHAIRMAN-.  Do  any  members  of  the  committee  desire  to  ask 
any  questions  ?  Mr.  Ferris,  do  you  wish  to  ask  any  questions  ? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  don't  think  so. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Might  I  ask  one  question  that  occurs  to  me?  Gov- 
ernor, some  people  have  expressed  the  opinion  that  we  are  attempt- 
ing to  put  over  a  great  reclamation  scheme  here  and  have  called 
it  a  soldier  settlement  bill  for  the  purpose  of  getting  it  over. 
Now,  none  of  those  men,  as  I  understand  it,  represent  the 
soldier  or  speak  for  the  soldier.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  you 
had  talked  with  a  good  many  soldiers;  could  you  give  the  view  of 
the  soldiers  on  this  project?  Do  they  want  it?  Are  they  in  favor 
of  it? 

Mr.  ROBERTSOX.  Well,  I  am  frank  to  say  that  I  think  about  three 
or  four  out  of  ten  of  those  that  came  from  the  farm  are  interested 
in  this  idea.  I  don't  believe  the  percentage  will  run  over  that.  I 
am  sorry  to  say  that  there  are  a  good  many  of  these  boys  who  went 
from  the  farm  who  are  not  willing  to  go  back  to  the  farm.  I  am 
sorry  to  say  that,  but  I  think  there  are  three  or  four  out  of  ten  who 
are  anxious  to  go  back,  but  all.  of  them  want  a  piece  of  land  of  their 
own.  The}'  are  men  now,  you  understand.  A  year  or  two  has  made 
a  wonderful  change  in  them. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Have  you  heard  the  soldiers  express  themselves  on 
this  particular  plan  ? 

Mr.  ROBERTSOX.  I  talked  with  them  personally  about  this  idea  my- 
self, and  I  have  talked  with  quite  a  number  of  them 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Do  they  favor  it? 

Mr.  ROBERTSOX.  Well,  as  I  suggested,  I  think  that  percentage 
favor  it ;  I  believe  that  is  a  fair  estimate. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  About  40  per  cent? 

Mr.  ROBERTSOX.  Yes. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  You  spoke,  Governor,  of  having  a  law  in 
your  State  by  which  you  could  loan  the  full  value  of  the  farm? 

Mr.  ROBERTSOX.  Yes. 


250  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  SMITH  o'f  Idaho.  Are  you  able  to  meet  the  demand  of  those- 
that  want  to  take  advantage  of  this  opportunity  ? 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  I  should  much  prefer  to  answer  that  by  saying 
that  that  law  is  not  in  effect  yet.  It  will  not  go  into  effect  until 
the  first  of  July,  but  we  have  it  organized  and  have  many  more 
applications  in  now  than  our  fund  will  enable  us  to  take  care  of. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  It  looks  like  a  very  attractive  proposition, 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  It  is;  but  you  have  to  have  an  attractive  propo- 
sition to  meet  the  demand  of  the  man  who  has  no  home  and  no  way 
of  getting  a  home. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  These  soldiers  that  you  spoke  of  as  having 
left  the  farm  and  entered  the  Army,  are  they  looking  for  employ- 
ment in  the  cities  ? 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  Yes,  sir;  I  am  sorry  to  say  there  is  a  large  number 
of  them,  of  those  I  have  investigated  myself,  who  want  to  stay  where 
the  bright  lights  are. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  In  your  talks  with  the  soldiers,  Governor,  would 
you  assume  that  the  possible  ownership  of  a  future  farm  such  as 
is  proposed  appeals  to  them  or  would  the  50  cents  an  hour,  as  pro- 
posed, working  for  the  Government,  appeal  to  them  pretty  strongly 
as  well? 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  I  think  the  percentage  that  I  gave  a  while  ago 
want  a  home.  Of  course,  a  large  number  of  them  want  any  employ- 
ment they  can  get  at  the  present  time. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I  assume,  Governor,  you  are  familiar  with  this  bill, 
House  bill  487.  There  is  a  clause  in  here — a  section,  rather — that 
says  that  there  shall  be  no  transfer  or  alienation  of  the  property 
within  10  years  without  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior. 
What  do  you  think  of  that? 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  I  think  that  is  a  wise  provision,  a  very  wise  pro- 
vision. Of  course,  in  our  country,  where  we  had  so  many  restric- 
tions placed  upon  the  alienation  of  Indian  land,  anything  that  looks 
like  alienation  or  restriction  is  usually  viewed  with  suspicion. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Don't  you  think  the  soldiers  will  view  this  with 
suspicion  and  render  it  very  unpopular? 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  I  hardly  think  so,  because  the  man  who  goes  on 
in  good  faith  will  not  be  looking  for  an  excuse — or  at  least  he  ought 
not  to  be  looking  for  an  excuse — to  alienate  his  land,  but  that  saving 
clause  in  there  that  the  Secretary  may,  after  the  investigation,  grant 
that  permission,  I  think  that  is  sufficient. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Would  you  say  that  a  shorter  time  would  be  better, 
say,  five  years?  You  know  that  under  the  homestead  law  he  gets 
title  in  five  years. 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  That  might  be  true.    I  would  not  venture  to  say. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I  am  just  asking  your  opinion.  I  know  3^011  have 
had  considerable  experience. 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  I  have  given  that  phase  of  it  considerable  con- 
sideration. Perhaps  there  should  be,  but  I  think  there  ought  to  be 
a  limitation  somewhere. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  If  I  may  just  put  in  a  word  there,  Governor — it  is 
in  evidence  here  in  Gov.  Lane's  testimony,  I  think,  that  he  has  sent 
out  query  sheets  to  some  250,000  soldiers,  and  I  believe  he  stated  that 
lie  had  received  replies  from  52,000.  I  may  not  be  quite  accurate, 
but  that  was  the  substance  of  it.  That  would  make  about  20  per 


HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS.  251 

cent,  or  about  one  fifth,  of  them  that  had  replied,  which  would  indi- 
cate, first,  that  they  had  shown  enough  interest  to  reply,  and  second, 
that  they  had  shown  enough  interest  to  say  that  they  were  in  favor 
of  something  of  this  sort.  Do  you  think  that  would  be  about  your 
percentage  in  Oklahoma,  or  do  you  think  it  would  be  larger  ? 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  You  say  he  sent  out  250,000? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Yes;  and  about  one-fifth  of  them  made  response  that 
they  would  like  to  engage  in  something  of  this  sort.  Do  you  think 
that  would  be  about  our  percentage  in  Oklahoma,  down  home? 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  Of  course,  it  would  be  a  guess. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  It  might  be  larger,  due  to  the  fact  that  we  have  a  large 
agricultural  State. 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  Yes;  we  have  an  agricultural  State  to  start  with, 
but  I  think  perhaps  that  is  reasonable.  He  ought  to  know  more 
about  it  than  I,  of  course.  I  haven't  attempted  to  keep  a  close  ac- 
count of  these  things. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Of  course,  he  didn't  send  this  letter  to  all  of  them, 
from  the  very  nature  of  things,  but  he  did  send  250,000  and  from 
that  came  52,000  who  said  they  were  interested  in  it  and  would  like 
to  have  this  opportunity.  I  was  wondering  if  you  thought  that  was 
about  the  percentage  who  were  interested  in  our  State. 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  I  think  perhaps  that  would  be  reasonable. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  We  have  had  considerable  trouble,  haven't  we,  Gov- 
ernor, about  tenantry  in  our  State? 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  Yes,  sir;  tenantry  is  growing  rapidly.  It  is  one 
of  the  menaces  and  dangers  of  the  Republic.  That  is  the  thing  that 
prompted  the  passage  of  this  home  ownership  law. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  It  is  in  evidence  here — one  of  the  witnesses  yesterday 
testified  that  his  objection  to  this  bill  went  to  the  proposition  that 
the  Government  allowed  the  soldier  to  get  title  to  the  land.  He 
thought  that  there  ought  to  be  a  lease-hold  proposition.  What  is 
your  opinion  about  that  ? 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  He  was  a  single  taxer.  I  was  a  single  taxer  for 
25  years.  It  is  a  wonderfully  beautiful  dream,  but  when  it  comes 
down  to  a  practical  working  of  it,  we  haven't  time  nor  opportunity, 
so  far  as  that  is  concerned — we  will  never  see  that  day  at  all.  It  is 
not.  practical. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  There  wouldn't  be  any  considerable  percentage  of  the 
people  in  our  State  that  would  be  favorable  to  any  sort  of  lease  hold 
estate,  isn't  that  true  ? 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  That  is  especially  true  in  Oklahoma,  where  we 
have  had  so  much  Indian  land  and  have  had  so  much  school  land. 
We  have  been  compelled  to  sell  our  school  land  in  order  to  put  it  on 
the  tax  roll  and  make  real  home  owners  out  of  the  people.  They 
wouldn't  care  for  such  a  scheme. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Have  we  land  in  Oklahoma  that  would  be  appropriate 
for  a  soldier's  community  ? 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  I  mentioned  three  or  four  tracts,  large  tracts,  out 
in  Beaver  and  Cimarron  Counties,  especially,  and  in  Coal,  Atoka,  and 
McCurtain  Counties  we  have  large  areas  of  good  land.  There  is  a 
great  deal  of  the  very  best  land  in  the  State  that  is  inherited,  dead 
Indian  land,  and  with  the  restrictions  taken  away  so  that  the  Gov- 
ernment could  handle  it,  that  would  be  a  fine  thing;  but  as  it  is  now, 
you  can't  reach  it. 


252  HOMES  FOK  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  that  would  enable  the  soldiers,  if  projects  were 
opened  there — that  would  enable  the  soldier  that  went  from  Okla- 
homa to  the  war,  to  come  back  and  remain  there  if  he  wanted  to? 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  Yes,  and  lots  of  them  want  to  do  it.  And  the 
State  of  Oklahoma  will  give  the  most  earnest  consideration  and 
hearty  cooperation  in  this  scheme. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  would  those  Indian  lands,  like  those  in  Me-, 
Curtain  County,  and  those  out  through  the  northwestern  portion — 
what  could  those  lands  be  had  for,  roughly  ? 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  Well,  you  take  the  Coal  County  project  and  the 
McCurtain  County  project,  that  is  some  of  the  very  best  land  in  the 
State,  but  it  is  large  areas  and  hasn't  been  developed,  and  it  is  awaj; 
from  the  railroad,  and  it  would  necessitate  the  bringing  in  of  high- 
ways, which  the  State  is  unable  to  do  at  this  time;  yet  that  Isiml  is 
worth  $10  or  $15  an  acre  as  it  lies.  But  out  in  Beaver  and  Cimarron 
County  it  may  be  25  per  cent  cheaper. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Those  prices,  of  course,  would  not  be  prohibitive  under 
this  plan. 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  No ;  but  those  are  undeveloped  lands. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Governor,  in  what  way  and  to  what  extent  do  you  esti- 
mate that  the  State  could  cooperate  with  the  Government  under 
this  law  ? 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  That  is  a  little  difficult  for  me  to  answer.  We  are 
perfectly  willing  to  do  all  we  can.  We  made  an  appropriation  of 
some  $250,000,  together  with  a  freight  refund  of  $490,000,  making 
something  like  $600,000 — a  little  better  than  $600,000  for  the  home 
ownership  law.  That  can  be  increased  at  each  session  of  the  legisla- 
ture. That  can  be  increased,  and  that  can  be  taken  advantage  of. 
We  can  use  that  money  for  that  purpose,  and  we  will  go  just  as  far 
as  we  can. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Could  that  money  be  used  to  supplement  the  amount 
that  the  Government  appropriates? 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  Yes;  if  the  Government  wanted  to  loan  not  more 
than  75  per  cent,  we  would  take  the  25  per  cent  out  of  this  home  own- 
ership fund.  We  would  be  glad  to  do  it,  provided,  of  course,  they 
met  the  requirements  in  the  way  of  being  men  of  reputation  and  in- 
^egrity  and  willingness  to  work,  and  so  forth. 

Mr.  RAKER.  May  I  ask  the  Governor  one  question?  If  you  have 
already  gone  into  this,  I  will  not  bother  you. 

Governor,  what  is  your  theory  as  to  arranging  any  legislation 
that  may  be  enacted  for  the  purpose  of  giving  the  homestead — I  will 
call  it  a  homestead;  you  may  call  it  a  home,  but  I  like  the  word 
"  homestead  " — that  after  he  has  done  a  certain  amount  on  it,  or  an 
amount  which  would  entitle  him  to  a  patent,  whatever  that  may  be, 
as  to  his  having  the  right  to  sell  and  dispose  of  the  land. 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  I  presume,  of  course,  provision  has  been  made  that 
if  he  meets  the  requirements  of  the  Government  after  three  or  four 
or  five  or  ten  years,  as  the  case  may  be,  he  can  pay  out  like  he  did  un- 
der the  homestead  law,  and  have  the  land  for  his  own,  ami  be  free 
from  restriction  and  inalienability,  I  think  that  there  ought  to  be 
restrictions  for  at  least  a  reasonable  length  of  time. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes;  no  doubt  about  that.  Now,  there  should  be  some 
arrangement  tlial  as  long  as  there  is  an  obligation  from  the  home- 
steader to  the  Government,  on  any  kind  of  a  project  for  reclamation. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  253 

drainage,  or  turning  over  the  land,  whereby  he  is  to  pay  his  propor- 
tion, by  which  he  may  be  entitled  to  a  patent.  You  believe  that  the 
Government  should  be  protected  by  some  method — that  the  Govern- 
ment should  not  lose  ? 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  I  do.  From  our  experience  with  our  school 
lands,  which  we  sell  on  40  years'  time  at  5  per  cent,  we  give  them  the 
option  to  sell,  just  as  though  there  was  no  restriction  on  it  at  all, 
and  we  haven't  taken  advantage  of  that  in  any  case. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  that  should  be  so  that  the  man  can  alienate  his 
land  and  still  have  the  Government  protect  it. 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  The  right  kind  of  a  man  would  not  want  to  take 
advantage  of  the  Government,  and  the  Government  ought  not  to  give 
the  wrong  sort  of  man  the  opportunity  to  take  advantage.  There 
ought  to  be  a  restriction  on  him,  as  you  suggest,  but  it  should  not  be 
an  unreasonable  restriction. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Governor,  these  men  having  gone  into  the  service  and 
having  served,  and  been  designated  as  men  who  are  prepared  and 
ready  and  willing  to  defend  this  country,  do  you  believe  that  there 
should  be  any  board  or  commission  who  should  now  select  and  deter- 
mine which  one  of  these  men  should  have  a  homestead,  providing 
the  man  is  physically  capable  and  able  and  has  the  qualifications  of 
a  citizen? 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  Yes;  I  do — just  the  necessary  machinery. 

Mr.  RAKBR.  Do  you  think  there  should  be  a  board  to  designate 
which  should  go  or  "that  the  soldier  should  have  the  option  himself — 
the  right  of  self  determination  ? 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  Yes ;  I  did  not  understand  you.  You  have  got  to 
give  the  soldier  some  latitude.  You  have  got  to  treat  his  as  a  free 
man.  He  has  got  to  be  consulted  in  the  matter. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Don't  you  think  it  would  be  resented  by  the  soldier? 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  Yes;  he  has  got  to  be  a  free  acting  man.  You 
can't  arbitrarily  set  aside  a  piece  of  land  and  tell  him  he  can  have 
that  or  none.  That  won't  do  at  all. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Supposing  here  are  10  soldiers  applying  for  home- 
steads. Do  you  think  that  any  board  or  commission  should  be  given 
the  power  to  say,  "  We  will  select  three  of  you,  and  you  seven  don't 
look  good  to  us,'"  or  "  You  have  been  working  in  the  cities,  you  have . 
studied  electricity,  and  you  have  been  in  a  law  office;  you  have  been 
in  a  blacksmith's  shop,  and  you  have  been  in  a  store,  and  I  guess  I 
won't  give  you  a  chance ;  but  these  three  boys  have  been  on  the  farm 
and  I  will  give  them  an  opportunity  to  file  on  this  homestead,  but 
seven  of  them  have  these  other  occupations,  and  therefore  I  will 
not  let  you  file  " — do  you  think  there  should  be  any  such  restrictions  ? 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  No,  sir;  I  don't.     They  would  be  dissatisi\ed. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  would  give  them  all  the  same  chance? 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  Yes ;  I  think  so  without  doubt. 

I  want  to  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  my  State  appreciates  the  efforts 
of  Secretary  Lane  and  the  Interior  Department  in  trying  to  solve 
this  problem.  We  appreciate  the  spirit  in  which  you  have  taken 
hold  of  this  proposition.  There  is  no  politics  in  it;  it  is  just  a  ques- 
tion of  trying  not  merely  to  develop  the  agricultural  land,  but  trying 
to  save  these  boys  and  make  good  citizens  and  -home  owners  out  of 
them ;  and  I  say  to  you  that  home  ownership  is  the  great  live  ques- 
tion in  America  to-day.  The  stability  of  this  Government  depends 


254  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

very  largely  upon  converting  these  men  that  are  not  home  owners 
now,  these  tenants  into  home  owners,  anchoring  them  down  so  that 
they  will  have  an  interest  in  the  Government  and  in  our  institutions. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Have  you  given  any  thought  as  to  the  method  of 
locating  men  on  homesteads,  whether  there  should  be  a  particular 
spot  or  location  in  the  center  where  he  should  live  and  then  farm 
their  land  from  that  center,  or  have  separate  individual  homes,  like 
you  have  in  Oklahoma  and  all  over  the  United  States? 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  I  have  not  given  consideration  to  that  thought, 
I  naturally  would  think,  though,  that  the  individual  home  is  the 
better  plan.  I  am  very  much  in  favor  of  this  village  plan,  like  they 
have  in  Germany  and  Europe.  I  don't  think  that  is  a  good  thing. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Or  Italy. 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  Yes.  I  was  born  and  reared  on  a  farm  and  I  still 
think  that  the  farm  should  be  the  great  home  of  our  people.  And  I 
think  that  this  plan  is  going  to  bring  splendid  results. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes;  it  is  going  to  bring  splendid  results,  but  what 
is  your  theory  as  to  the  method  of  placing  the  men  on  the  homestead  ? 
Suppose  you  build  your  roads ;  you  drain  the  land — I  will  put  it  the 
other  way — you  build  your  dam,  get  the  main  ditches  in,  and  get 
the  system  into  the  building  up  of  a  modest  little  home  so  that  it  can 
be  added  to;  have  the  necessary  outlay,  a  sufficient  amount  to  start 
in  cultivation,  and  then  leaving  him  a  balance  to  develop  and  im- 
prove as  he  progresses.  Do  you  believe  that  would  be  the  better 
plan,  or  to  give  him  a  complete,  improved  farm  ? 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  Well,  we  have  had  a  good  deal  of  experience  down 
there  putting  men  on  raw  land.  Of  course,  our  State  was  opened — 
every  man  that  went  in  there  with  a  family  took  possession  of  a 
quarter  section,  and  he  had  jurisdiction  over  the  whole  quarter  sec- 
tion, and,  of  course,  he  had  no  help  but  did  the  best  he  could.  Now, 
I  am  inclined  to  think  that  if  you  go  too  far  in  helping  these  soldiers 
in  the  matter  of  furnishing  them  all  the  necessary  equipment  and 
tools  and  money,  and  give  them  to  understand  that  you  are  going 
to  take  hold  of  this  thing  and  make  it  a  success,  whether  he  will  or 
not,  I  think  you  are  going  too  far.  You  must  make  them  dependent 
upon  their  own  resources  and  their  own  initiative,  and  if  they  get 
the  idea  in  their  minds  that  this  Government  and  the  State,  working 
in  cooperation,  is  going  to  make  the  thing  a  success,  whether  or  no, 
you  will  have  trouble.  He  has  got  to  have  some  responsibility  him- 
self placed  on  his  own  shoulders. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  I  want  to  make  myself  plain  on  that.  If  there 
are  many  projects  to  clear,  the  individual  through  his  own  initiative, 
could  not  reclaim  the  land,  whether  it  was  swamp,  desert,  or  cut-over; 
if  you  do  the  big  part,  whereby  he  has  a  chance  to  get  on  his  place 
and  commence  to  cultivate,  he  can  then  complete  the  cultivation  and 
development  in  a  series  of  a  years,  and  do  better  than  if  you  had 
given  him  a  completed  farm. 

Mr.  ROBERTSON.  It  might  be.  I  wouldn't  attempt  to  say.  Of 
course,  these  lands  that  I  spoke  of — perhaps  the  cut-over  land  in 
McCurtain  County,  that  might  present  the  problem,  but  these  others 
would  not  present  that  problem.  I  am  not  prepared  to  say.  I  don't 
know. 

The  (  'IIAH;MAN.  We  thank  you  very  much.  Governor,  for  your 
statement. 


3OMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  255 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  we  have  here  Mr.  Park,  of 
Georgia;  Mr.  Morgan,  of  Oklahoma;  Mr.  Reed  and  Gov.  Davis,  of 
Idaho.  I  told  Mr.  Park  that  we  would  try  to  give  him  a  hearing 
this  morning,  and  also  Mr.  Morgan.  Are  you  ready  to  proceed  now, 
Mr.  Park? 

Mr.  PARK.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  will  state,  Mr.  Park,  that  it  was  the  understand- 
ing the  other  day  that  Members  of  Congress  should  be  limiiW  *~ 
liftsen  minutes. 

STATEMENT    OF   HON.    FRANK   PARK,    A   REPRESENTATIVE    IN 
CONGRESS  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  GEORGIA. 

Mr.  PARK.  Fifteen  minutes  is  all  I  want.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gen- 
tlemen, as  the  department  has  outlined  its  opinion,  I  don't  think  that 
the  people  in  my  State  are  in  favor  of  it,  but  as  they  become  ac- 
quainted with  the  object  and  intent  of  the  bill  and  the  general  plan, 
I  think  perhaps  a  majority  of  our  people  will  favor  it.  I  can't  speak 
with  any  degree  of  authority  as  to  how  they  feel  about  it. 

I  am  not  supposed  to  lay  before  this  committee  any  project  or  plan, 
but  I  wish  to  say  that  we  have  organized  in  this  State  a  landowners 
association,  which  will  be  incorporated  by  this  legislature  for  the 
purpose  of  cooperating  with  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  and  his 
agencies  in  this  matter. 

What  I  wish  to  outline,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  the  benefit  of  myself 
and  other  Members  of  Congress  who  have  queries  put  to  them  re- 
garding this  matter,  is  the  application  of  this  law  as  it  is  formulated 
up  to  date  to  the  plain  common  soldier.  We  have  many  tenants  who 
have  always  been  tenants,  and  their  children  are  tenants.  Now,  these 
boys  were  in  the  Argorine  Forest,  and  some  of  them  in  Chateau 
Thierry,  and  they  naturally  would  participate;  but  you  take  the 
farmer  boy  who  has  absolutely  nothing;  as  I  understand  it,  you 
propose  to  lay  out  a  project  and  give  such  a  boy  $4  a  day  for  12 
months  to  help  improve  this  general  project.  If  I  am  incorrect,  I 
want  to  be  corrected,  because  I  want  to  state  the  facts  to  my  con- 
stituents. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  is  nothing  in  the  bill  about  the  wages  that 
he  is  to  receive,  nor  the  length  of  time  he  is  to  work. 

Mr.  PARK.  Well.  Mr.  Lane  stated  $4  a  day  in  his  report. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  stated  that  it  would  be  something  like  the 
wages  of  the  neighborhood. 

Mr.  PARK.  Yes.  Well,  they  can  get  that  much  now.  Then  he  will 
be  enabled  to  meet  this  first  5  per  cent  and  perhaps  40  per  cent  on  his 
mules  and  plow,  tools,  and  other  improvements,  by  working  12  months 
on  this  general  project.  Am  I  right  in  that?  In  other  words, 
how  is  the  boy  to  start?  How  is  he  to  take  advantage  of  what  we 
propose  to  be  a  benefit  to  him  ?  Is  it  to  be  a  benefit,  and,  if  so,  how 
is  it  to  be  a  benefit? 

Now,  a  good  many  who  were,  as  Mr.  Raker  mentioned,  clerks, 
blacksmiths,  and  so  forth,  may  want  to  take  advantage — they  may 
want  to  change  their  occupation.  If  so,  I  would  presume  that  the 
Secretary  would  provide  that  a  man  who  had  been  in  the  Navy  as 
an  instructor,  an  overseer,  to  go  by  and  see  how  each  man  is  getting 
along  with  his  project,  make  a  report  monthly  or  weekly  to  the  Sec- 
133319—19 17 


256  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

retary  as  to  the  progress  each  individual  is  making;  otherwise,  in 
the  course  of  six  months  he  would  be  flat;  he  will  move  off.  and  then 
the  Government  has  the  land  on  its  hands. 

Now,  to  go  on  further,  suppose  this  man  through  misfortune  has  a 
long  spell  of  typhoid  fever,  or  suppose  he  should  die  himself  and 
leave  it  to -his  wife.  He  is  in  debt;  his  wife  is  in  debt;  what  provi- 
sion is  made  to  look  after  these  people  at  that  time  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  any  suggestions  for  .these  contingencies 
that  you  speak  of? 

Mr.  PARK.  I  suggest  that  if  he  is  doing  his  best  intelligently,  that 
the  Government  help  him  till  he  gets  on  his  feet.  Otherwise  he 
had  better  start  out  and  buy  a  piece  of  land  himself  on  his  own 
hook.  In  other  words,  we  don't  want  to  cripple  or  throw  around  him 
restrictions  in  such  a  way  that  he  wouldn't  be  on  a  parity  with 
somebody  else  who  had  not  been  a  soldier. 

And  in  regard  to  selling  his  land,  I  think  that  the  soldier  ought 
not  be  encumbered  in  any  way.  If  he  went  on  one  of  these  projects, 
a  hundred-acre  farm,  or  a  fifty-acre  farm,  and  did  the  best  lie  could 
for  two  years,  and  was  afterwards  left  a  sum  of  money  by  some  of 
his  relatives  or  had  a  good  opportunity  to  get  a  better  job,  he  ought 
to  be  allowed  to  turn  it  back  to  the  Government,  who  could,  in  turn, 
sell  it  to  somebody  else. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  mean  sell  it  back  to  the  Government? 

Mr.  PARK.  Sell  it  to  the  Government  and  give  him  pay  for  what 
he  has  done  on  that  project.  In  other  words,  he  should  not  be  made 
to  lose  simply  because  we  restrict  him  by  certain  conditions  and  laws 
and  rules.  He  is  not  a  free  man;  he  is  not  a  free  agent  when  ycu 
do  that. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  There  is  nothing  in  the  bill.  Mr.  Park,  that 
prohibits  that  man  from  transferring  his  rights  to  some  one  else. 

Mr.  PARK.  With  the  consent  of  the  Secretary? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Well,  some  one  in  authority  must  consent. 

Mr.  PARK.  Well,  you  had  better  just  simply  make  it — if  it  is  an 
automatic  ruling,  it  is  all  right,  but  let  him  do  it  if  he  wants  to; 
give  him  the  same  power  and  authority  that  you  would  if  he  was 
a  free  man. 

Mr.  VAILE.  I  presume  that  the  matter  of  transfer  of  the  contract 
to  purchase  land  would  be  covered  by  regulations  issued  by  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Interior  in  some  form. 

Mr.  PARK.  Why  should  you  restrict  him  more  than  the  ordinary 
citizen  adjoining  him  is  restricted?  Here  is  another  man  that  was 
not  in  the  Army,  who  buys  himself  a  farm,  an  industrious  man.  He 
stays  there  a  year  and  he  has  an  offer  of  twice  as  much  as  it  cost  him. 
and  he  sells  out.  This  man  improves  his  land  the  same  way ;  he  has 
an  offer  of  twice  as  much  and  he  can't  sell  out  except  by  complying 
with  certain  restrictions. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  In  one  instance  the  Government  furnishes  the  money ; 
in  the  other  instance  it  does  not. 

Mr.  PARK.  No;  the  Government  only  loans  him  the  money.  The 
Government  don't  furnish  him  anything.  This  bill  don't  give  him 
anything.  It  gives  him  an  opportunity  to  make  a  farmer  out  of  him- 
self and  make  a  home,  and  that  is  all  it  docs  give  him. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Well.  Judgo.  T  know  you  are  friendly  to  the  farmer — 
I  know  you  are  friendly  to  the  soldier — 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  257 

Mr.  PARK  (interposing).  I  want  to  help  the  soldier,  tind  that  is 
what  this  bill  ought  to  do  altogether.  This  reclamation  project 
should  be  out  of  contemplation  except  incidentally.  You  don't  want 
to  drain  lands  for  soldiers  or  irrigate  lands  for  soldiers  if  you  have 
got  land  already  at  a  cheaper  price  that  you  can  give  the  soldiers. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Would  it  interrupt  you  to  ask  you  a  question  now, 
or  would  you  rather  wait  until  you  finish  your  statement? 

Mr.  PARK.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  On  page  3  of  the  bill,  lines  6  to  10,  we  find  this  pro- 
vision. I  think  it  meets  your  suggestion : 

"  The  Secretary  may  also,  through  agreement  with  soldiers,  make 
provision  for  necessary  improvements,  but  the  contribution  from  the 
fund"— that  is,  this  $500,000,000  fund— "  shall  in  no  single  case 
exceed  $1.200,  nor  in  excess  of  three-quarters  of  the  cost  or  value  of 
the  improvements." 

Now,  over  on  the  next  page — that  is,  $1,200  for  permanent  im- 
provements  

Mr.  PARK  (interposing).  That  means  improvements  to  the  land? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  PARK.  Buildings  and  clearing? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Yes.     Permanent  improvements. 

Xow.  on  page  5,  section  8,  we  find  this: 

That  the  Secretary  is  also  authorized  to  make  short-time  loans  from  the 
fund,  not  to  exceed  $800  at  any  one  time,  to  a  soldier  settler  for  the  purchase 
of  necessary  live  stock  and  equipment,  and  provision  shall  be  made  for  the 
repayment  of  such  loans  during  a  period  not  to  exceed  five  years  with  interest  on 
deferred  payments  at  4  per  cent  per  annum,  payable  annually. 

Now,  here  we  have  first  the  Government  giving  him  land — that 
is,  affording  him  an  opportunity  to  get  land — second,  we  authorize 
a  loan  of  $1,200  to  build  permanent  improvements  on  the  land; 
third,  we  authorize  a  loan  of  not  exceeding  $800  at  any  one  time,  but 
they  may  loan  at  another  time.  For  what  ?  For  the  purpose  of  get- 
ting teams  and  stock.  Now,  there  are  three  things  that  the  Gov- 
ernment affords  him  the  opportunity  to  do,  because  you  say  it  is  a 
loan,  and  it  is,  but,  Judge  Park,  isn't  it  true  that  a  homesteader  or  a 
man  without  means  and  without  title  and  without  money  and  without 
security  can  not  borrow  $1,200  from  any  bank  to  make"  a  permanent 
improvement  at  4  per  cent,  and  he  can't  borrow  $800  without  security  ? 

Mr.  PARK.  That  is  the  advantage  you  are  offering  the  soldier. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  That  is  what  I  want  to  bring  out. 

Mr.  PARK.  That  is  about  the  only  advantage  that  I  see,  but  that  is 
a  great  advantage. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  That  is  quite  an  advantage,  isn't  it? 

Mr.  PARK.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Then  if  I  may  interrupt  you  once  more — now  I  know 
you  are  a  very  great  friend  of  the  soldier ;  I  know  you  desire  to  see 
him  provided  for ;  I  know  that  is  why  you  are  here — 

Mr.  PARK  (interposing).  But  I  don't  want  to  hinder  him. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  know,  but.  Judge,  you  have  been  here  a  long  time, 
and  you  are  one  of  the  substantial  Members  of  the  House,  and  you 
know  that  this  bill  has  got  to  bear  the  earmarks  of  fairness  to  the 
Government;  otherwise  we  can't  get  it  through  the  House  and  we 
can't  get  anv  relief  for  the  soldier.  So  there  is  such  a  thing  as 
allowing  our  hearts  to  go  out  to  the  soldier  to  the  extent  that  we 


258  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

may  load  up  this  bill  so  heavy  that  we  can't  get  anything  for  him ; 
so  it  is  those  of  us  here  on  the  committee  that  are  trying  now  to 
steer  a  middle  ground  that  will  maintain  at  all  times  a  standard  of 
fairness  to  the  soldier  and  to  the  Government,  and  get  something 
that  we  can  get  through.  I  know  you  appreciate  that. 

Mr.  PARK.  Yes ;  I  appreciate  that.  At  the  same  time  I  don't  want 
any  restrictions  placed  upon  this  applicant  for  one  of  these  farms 
that  will  hamper  and  hinder  him  afterwards.  Give  him  the  same 
right  that  an  ordinary  free  agent  or  free  citizen  has  in  disposing  of 
his  property  if  he  wants  to.  Let  there  be  a  lien  on  his  property  for 
the  money  that  the  Government  furnishes  him  at  the  time  he  begins 
this  $1,200  or  $800,  or  so  much  of  it  as  he  has  not  paid  back. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Now.  one  word  right  on  that  point:  After  the  Civil 
War,  Congress  provided  scrip  for  the  soldiers,  which  you  are  familiar 
with,  and  that  scrip  was  sold  indiscriminately  and  got  into  the  hands 
of  speculators  and  scrip  peddlers  and  merchants,  until  it  became 
bordering  on  a  national  scandal.  The  Land  Office,  the  Interior  De- 
partment, and  members  of  this  committee  will  tell  you  that  they 
don't  want  any  more  scrip.  Now  if  you  allow  the  soldier  to  dispose 
of  his  property  immediately  you  will  find  this  thing.  I  think,  spring 
up,  that  these  lands  will  get  into  the  hands  of  speculators. 

Mr.  PARK.  He  has  got  nothing  to  sell  immediately.  He  owns 
nothing. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Well,  he  has  been  allotted  an  area  of  land  in  which 
he  has  an  inchoate  right,  which  of  course  may  develop  into  a  patent 
right.  I  thought  you  were  asking  that  he  should  have  his  right 
immediately. 

Mr.  PARK.  No;  to  sell  his  improvements. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Well,  even  if  you  do  that,  Judge,  immediately,  I 
think  you  would  find  that  speculators  and  men  who  wanted  to  make 
money  out  of  it  would  get  large  areas  of  land  and  colonize  soldiers. 
For  what  purpose?  For  the  purpose  of  holding  the  land  a  little 
while  and  then  buying  them  out,  and  the  Government  would  be  in 
the  attitude  of  appropriating  $500,000,000,  for  that  is  what  this  bill 
is  going  to  cost,  and  what  for?  Not  to  benefit  the  soldier,  but  to 
benefit  the  speculator  who  bought  the  soldier  up.  We  have  got  to 
have  a  care  for  that. 

The  CH AIRMAN.  You  have  just  five  minutes  left,  Judge. 

Mr.  PARK.  In  case  the  soldier  is  satisfied  and  is  making  a  living, 
and  a  little  money,  he  wouldn't  want  to  sell. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  PARK.  But  if  the  land  you  give  him  is  not  sufficient,  or  is  im- 
proper for  cultivation,  he  may  want  to  sell  out. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Don't  you  think  it  would  be  well  to  provide  that  this 
transfer  should  be  made  only  to  a  soldier?  Otherwise  you  would 
have  civilians,  private  citizens,  getting  the  benefit  which  the  Gov- 
ernment intended  to  give  only  to  soldiers. 

Mr.  PARK.  Well,  I  can  see  this,  that  at  the  end  of  three  or  four 
years  all  of  these  soldiers  that  fought  against  Germany  would  be 
located  permanently  in  some  kind  of  business.  They  will  be  already 
engaged  in  some  pursuit  that  they  don't  want  to  abandon — that  it 
would  be  unprofitable  for  them  to  abandon. 

No\v,  getting  back  to  what  I  think  the  committee  wants,  in 
Georgia  they  have  something  like  100,000  acres  of  land  that  will 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  259 

produce  the  ordinary  products  of  Georgia,  and  they  can  make  almost 
anything  in  Georgia  in  fruits  and  provisions,  corn — they  can  raise 
wheat  now.  and  hogs  and  cows,  and  so  forth. 

This  landowners'  association  controls  these  bodies  of  land,  different 
members  of  the  association  control  different  parts  of  the  land,  but 
the  whole  is  under  one  organization,  and  there  would  be  no  profiteer- 
ing. I  presume,  under  this  bill. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  organization  is  u  State  organization? 

Mr.  PARK.  It  will  be  under  the  control  or  connected  with  the  State 
government ;  yes,  as  soon  as  it  is  incorporated. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  For  the  purpose  of  promoting  the  settlement  of 
soldiers? 

Mr.  PARK.  Xot  for  the  purpose  of  that  alone,  but  then  they  will 
have  large  tracts  of  land  to  offer  at  a  given  price,  from  $6  to  $20  an 
acre,  according  to  the  location  and  improvements.  At  the  same  time 
the  competition  will  be  sufficient  to  make  them  come  down  to  bed- 
rock. In  other  words,  the  Government  don't  want  to  go  in  and  buy 
up  $1  an  acre  land  at  $5  an  acre  or  $10  an  acre  and  sell  it  to  these 
boys  at  $10  an  acre  when  it  is  only  worth  $1  an  acre.  We  have  a 
great  deal  of  land  in  Georgia  that  is  capable  of  a  high  state  of  culti- 
vation if  it  was  put  into  a  proper  state  of  improvement  to  begin  with, 
but  it  costs  so  much  to  do  that. 

Xow,  I  want  to  say  that  I  am  satisfied  that  the  people  of  Georgia 
will  cooperate  in  this  enterprise,  this  project  that  we  have  now  before 
us — this  tremendous  project,  and  will  do  all  they  can  to  further  it 
by  State  aid,  if  possible — anyhow,  by  encouragement  in  every  way 
they  can. 

Xow.  Mr.  Chairman,  to  go  back  to  this  other  individual  project 
I  don't  want  to  take  up  any  more  time  than  you  have  given  me, 
and  if  I  have  got  just  one  minute  I  will  take  that. 

Mr.  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  just  one  minute  more. 

Mr.  PARK.  I  think  that  the  committee  and  every  member  of  Con- 
gress should  consider  this  bill  from  its  application  to  the  soldier 
alone,  not  through  reclamation  projects  in  south  Georgia,  that  is 
wet.  or  western  land  that  is  dry,  but  to  give — to  have  the  Interior 
Department  purchase  such  land  as  now  exists  without  any  reclama- 
tion for  these  soldiers;  start  them  to  work  now.  If  you  are  going  to 
start  them  at  all.  and  if  you  don't  begin  this  scheme  soon,  you  can't 
begin  it,  because,  as  I  have  said,  the  soldiers  will  already  have  oc- 
cupations that  they  don't  want  to  leave.  I  thank  you. 

The  CHAIRMAN. 'We  are  very  much  obliged  to  you.  Judge. 

Mr.  Morgan,  do  you  wish  to  speak  now? 

Mr.  MORGAN,  of  Oklahoma.  Mr.  Chairman,  did  I  understand  you 
were  going  to  give  us  15  minutes? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  was  the  understanding  the  other  day,  that 
Members  of  the  House  should  be  limited  to  15  minutes. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Well.  now.  with  all  due  regard  to  the  rights  of  the 
committee,  I  know  how  these  things  are,  but  I  have  prepared  a  bill 
on  the  subject  and  I  would  like  to  have  30  minutes.  I  don't  want 
to  impose  upon  you. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Idaho.  What  is  the  number  of  the  bill? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  I  just  introduced  it  yesterday  and  I  haven't  got  a 
copy  of  it  yet.  But  I  think  I  have  got  something  to  say,  at  least, 


260      •  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

to  present  some  new  ideas  that  you  have  not  thought  of,  and  I  can't 
do  it  in  15  minutes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  ask  unanimous  consent — Mr.  Morgan 
used  to  be  a  member  of  this  committee,  and  I  ask  unanimous  consent 
that  he  have  30  minutes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  any  objection? 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Idaho.  Inasmuch  as  Mr.  Morgan's  bill  is  not  before 
the  committee,  it  seems  to  me  it  would  be  just  as  well  if  he  wants  to 
have  more  time  wait  until  to-morrow. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I  think  that  is  a  good  suggestion. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  I  have  no  objection.  I  would  rather  wait  till  to- 
morrow. Can  I  come  in  at  10  o'clock? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Ten  o'clock  tomorrow  morning,  yes. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Mr.  Morgan,  do  you  prefer  to  have  the  longer  time 
here  instead  of  15  minutes,  notwithstanding  that  you  will  have  all 
the  time  in  the  House  probably  that  you  want,  or  do  you  want  to 
address  the  committee  with  the  idea  of  having  the  committee  take 
up  all  the  points  that  you  wish  to  have  considered? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  If  there  is  no  objection,  I  would  like  to  have  an 
hour  before  the  committee,  and  I  want  just  as  much  in  the  House. 
I  would  be  very  glad  to  wait  till  to-morrow: 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  was  in  hopes  we  could  about  finish  this  to-day, 
but,  of  course,  the  committee  can  sit  to-morrow. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  go  ahead  if  you  can  hear 
me  for  30  minutes  now. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then,  without  objection,  we  will  hear  you  now. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Inasmuch  as  Mr.  Morgan  has  expressed  the  thought 
that  he  can  be  heard  to-morrow  with  better  advantage  to  ourselves. 
we  have  the  governor  of  Idaho  here  and  others  whom  perhaps  we 
are  detaining.  We  might  accommodate  both  Mr.  Morgan  and  them 
by  hearing  some  of  them  now. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  It  would  suit  me  just  as  well. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  It  would  suit  you  better,  wouldn't  it  ? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Dr.  Hathorn  is  here.  Gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
this  is  Dr.  Hathorn,  from  Memphis,  Tenn. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  be  glad  to  hear  you,  Mr.  Hathorn.  Will 
you  state  your  name  and  residence  and  whom  you  represent? 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  H.  GUY  HATHORN,  OF  MEMPHIS,  TENN. 

Mr.  HATIIORN.  My  name  is  H.  Guy  Hathorn.  in  business  with 
8.  X.  Williamson,  investment  bankers,  Memphis  Tenn.;  residence, 
Oxford.  Lafayette  County.  Miss. :  I  retain  my  citizenship  in  Missis- 
sippi. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen.  I  had  no  expectation  of  appearing 
before  this  committee.  I  came  to  Washington  with  some  members 
of  the  Memphis  Chamber  of  Commerce,  an  organization  that  has 
been  vitally  interested  in  this  project  from  its  inception,  and  to  whom 
tin-  general  outlines  of  the  project  were  explained  last  year  by  Dr. 
Elwood  Meade,  is  it? 

The  CIIAIU.MAN.  Elwood  Meade;  yes. 

Mr.  HATIIOKN.  We  were  asked  to  come  to  Washington,  knowing 
that  this  matter  was  up  again  for  consideration,  and  to  do  anything 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  261 

that  appeared  after  we  arrived  might  aid  in  helping  this  matter 
along,  because  we  all  believe  so  strongly  in  the  project  in  a  general 
way  in  that  territory. 

Now,  so  far  as  I  am  personally  concerned,  having  been  the  chief 
appraiser  for  three  years  for  a  concern  that  makes  farm  mortgage 
loans,  very  similar  in  so  far  as  the  appraisal  and  the  percentage 
of  loan  value  to  actual  value  is  concerned  to  the  Federal  loan  bank 
plan:  of  course,  having  covered  pretty  thoroughly  west  Tennessee, 
west  Kentucky,  eastern  Arkansas,  and  north  Mississippi,  in  the 
performance  of  my  duties,  I  would  naturally  be  in  possession  of 
some  information  that  might  be  of  some  value  to  this  committee, 
which,  perhaps,  you  might  help  me  to  give  by  questioning.  That, 
Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  is  my  warrant  for 
appearing  before  3Tou  to-day. 

Xow,  I  have  been  so  forcibly  impressed  with  some  of  the  dis- 
cii.-.-ions  that  have  gone  on  here  this  morning  that  I  am  going  to 
ask  your  permission  to  do  what  I  have  hesitated  to  do,  and  that  is 
to  read,  just  as  I  drafted  them,  a  few  little  points  that  I  jotted 
down  last  night  in  my  room  at  the  hotel;  and  I  want  to  say,  too, 
that  I  have  not  had  any  opportunity  so  far  to  even  read,  in  a  gen- 
eral and  superficial  manner  the  bill  that  is  up  for  consideration, 
and  so  it  may  be  merely  a  coincidence  that  my  rather  unformed  and 
rough  views  about  some  of  these  points  should  coincide  very  closely 
with  some  of  the  views  already  expressed  here;  or  it  may  be  that 
my  experience  and  observations  in  the  South  for  a  number  of  years, 
and  my  intimate  association  with  the  people  who  are  making  such 
splendid  progress  in  the  agricultural  development  of  the  South, 
might  cause  me  to  form  these  opinions.  May  I  have  your  permis- 
sion to  read  the  rough  notes  I  have  made  ? 

Before  I  do  that,  there  was  one  thing  that  seemed  to  me  very 
r  -onable  and  pertinent,  that  was  brought  out  to  a  certain  extent 
in  this  discussion,  and  that  is  that  while  the  matter  should  be  made 
attractive  to  those  of  the  soldiers  and  sailors  who  would  want  to 
avail  themselves  of  this  splendid  opportunity,  it  should  not  be  made 
too  easy:  that  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  percentage  of  success  in  all 
lines  of  endeavor  is  decidedly  higher  among  those  who  have  had  a 
certain  degree  of  struggle,  a  certain  amount  of  difficulty  and  ob- 
stacles to  overcome,  than  those  for  whom  the  path  has  been  made 
exceedingly  smooth. 

Xow.  with  reference  to  the  employment  of  the  soldiers  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  time  when  they  choose  to  avail  themselves  of  the 
privilege,  my  first  idea  was  that  there  would  be  a  certain  amount, 
a  certain  percentage  of  these  soldiers,  who  have  no  capital  whatever; 
who  can  not  make  any  initial  payment,  and  that  there  would  be  a 
certain  percentage  who,  because  of  their  own  efforts,  or  because  of 
assistance  that  might  be  rendered  by  fathers  or  brothers,  might  be 
in  a  position  to  make  the  initial  payment  that  would  be  required 
by  this  bill.  So  there  you  have  got  two  separate  classes  to  begin 
with,  and  with  reference  to  those  who  have  no  capital  at  all,  it 
would  seem  to  me  that  if  some  provision  was  made  by  which  they 
would  be  insured  steady  employment  for  a  period  of  perhaps  two 
years,  at  a  wage  that  it  seems  to  me  might  very  justly  be  a  little 
bit  in  excess  of  the  wage  that  is  paid  for  such  labor,  because  of  the 
fact  that  thev  risked  their  lives  in  the  defense  of  this  country — in 


262  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

other  words,  that  they  be  paid  the  actual  value  of  the  labor  they 
perform,  and  in  addition  to  that,  a  small  bonus,  if  you  please,  for 
a  period  of  from  one  to  two  years;  and  if  they  stick  during  that 
entire  period,  that  would  certainly  be  a  good  warrant  for  believing 
they  have  the  stuff  that  would  go  on  and  achieve  ultimate  success. 
and  that  this  little  excess  payment  that  was  put  on  in  recognition 
and  acknowledgment  of  the  fact  that  they  deserve  consideration  more 
than  the  man  who  had  not  been  in  the  Army  might  be  set  aside,  not 
paid  to  them,  but  set  aside,  to  be  devoted  to  this  initial  payment,  and 
if  anything  happened  that  the  soldier  either  elected  to  or  was  com- 
pelled to  abandon  the  proposition  before  the  end  of  the  stipulated 
time,  then  it  might  be  paid  to  him  and  let  him  go. 

In  that  way  it  seems  to  me  that  there  would  be  a  greater  certainty 
that  these  soldiers  without  capital  would  have  the  initial  payment 
at  that  time  that  was  decided  by  the  provisions  of  the  measure  when 
they  should  go  on  a  homestead. 

There  is  another  point  that  struck  me,  that  the  land  should  be 
sold  to  the  soldier  in  a  partially  improved  state,  with  necessary  build- 
ings on  it  at  the  end,  say,  of  two  years,  and  nominal  payments  for 
the  land  and  buildings  with  long  time  amortized  payments,  main- 
taining an  adequate  insurance  on  the  buildings,  and  as  development 
goes  on,  he  can  complete  the  improvement  and  clearing  of  the  land 
and  be  employed  by  the  Government  for  a  large  part  of  the  year 
in  clearing  and  improving  other  land. 

Now,  I  have  seen  over  in  Arkansas  a  sort  of  semiprivate,  or  semi- 
segregated,  and  yet  in  a  way  a  community  development  proposition 
on  the  holdings  of  the  Chicago  Milling  &  Lumber  Co.  It  is  not 
far  from  Blytheville,  Ark.,  and  those  lands  were  sold  by  this 
lumber  company  for  an  initial  payment  of  $5  an  acre,  and  then  a 
payment  of  $5  per  annum  up  to  whatever  the  amount  was.  The 
price  has  been  rising  gradually  since  they  began  that  seven  or  eight 
years  ago,  and  of  course  there  were  restrictions  on  that,  but  the  point 
is  that  a  great  many  men  went  in  there  with  practically  no  capital 
except  the  initial  payment,  and  in  some  instances  they  didn't  have 
that,  but  were  employees  of  the  lumber  company  and 'were  allowed 
to  work  out  part  of  the  initial  payment. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Was  that  logged-over  land? 

Mr.  HATHORN.  Yes;  logged-over,  alluvial  lands.  This  was  not 
far  from  Blytheville.  In  many  instances  these  men  had  not  enough 
money  to  build  a  house  at  all/  They  had  a  team,  and  they  actually 
had  tents  for  the  first  year  and  they  cleared  up — green  timber,  some 
of  it  just  some  scattered  timber  left — maybe  10  or  15  acres  of  the 
40  acres  they  had  bought,  and  were  enabled  to  make  on  that  limited 
area  the  first  year,  perhaps,  half  a  crop  of  corn  or  cotton,  in  the 
meantime  deadening  this  timber.  The  next  year  they  would  take 
in  a  little  more  land  and  the  timber  would  be  entirely  (load,  so  that, 
at  the  end  of  the  second  crop,  perhaps  they  would  get  a  full  crop  on 
the  first  limited  area,  so  that  in  about  three  or  four  rears'  time  by 
exercising  great  industry,  all  of  their  ambition,  and  all  of  their 
resources-,  those  men  would  have  their  lands  cleared,  have  cheap 
lion-  s  built  on  thorn:  they  were  usually  not  as  good  houses  as  one 
would  like  to  see,  but  the  best  they  could  do  with  the  financial  as- 
sistance they  could  get;  and,  in  many  instances,  the  secretary  of  that 
com panj'  told  me,  those  men  anticipated  their  final  payments  by 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  2 68 

from  one  to  four  years.  They  usually  had  from  five  to  seven  years 
to  pay  the  proposition  out. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  am  fairly  convinced  that 
there  are  thousands  of  young  men,  who  have  practically  no  capital, 
that  were  in  the  Argonne  and  at  Chateau-Thierry,  that  have  the 
same  vim  and  the  same  energy  and  the  same  determination  that  these 
men  have  that  have  proceeded  on  this  project  over  in  Arkansas,  and 
that  with  the  limited  assistance  of  the  Government — limited,  I  mean, 
to  the  point  that  you  don't  make  it  too  easy  for  these  fellows,  but 
give  them  a  chance  and  make  it  attractive — that  they  will  make 
good  by  a  very  large  majority. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  idea  is  to  do  under  this  bill  just  exactly  what 
was  done  in  Arkansas. 

Mr.  HATHORN.  Is  that  it  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  HATHORN.  I  am  glad  to  hear  that.  I  knew  that  that  had  been 
practically  worked  out  along  those  lines. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Do  you  know  what  rate  of  interest  those 
men  paid? 

Mr.  HATHORN.  Six  per  cent. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  This  is  4  per  cent. 

Mr.  HATHORN.  Well,  that  makes  it  still  more  attractive;  but  I 
didn't  know  that  the  proposition  contemplated  that  the  land  would 
be  entirely  cleared  and  the  stumps  removed,  only  partially  cleared, 
so  that  the  purchaser,  the  soldier,  or  the  sailor,  who  went  on  that 
land,  would  be  able  by  his  own  labor,  to  coin  his  own  labor,  as  it 
were,  into  dollars  and  cents  in  the  further  perfection  of  that  land. 
Certainly  that  would  be  a  far  more  inexpensive  means  for  the 
Government. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Did  you  state  what  the  price  of  that  land  was  to  the 
settlers  ? 

Mr.  HATHORN.  I  did  not,  but  I  will.  I  will  be  glad  to  do  it,  When 
they  began  to  sell  those  lands  seven  or  eight  years  ago,  the  price 
was  then  around  $15  per  acre.  In  the  meantime  land  values  have 
risen  very  rapidly  in  that  section,  and  when  I  was  there  a  year  ago 
last  May  making  these  investigations  the  prevailing  price  then — the 
average  price,  I  might  say — was  $35  an  acre.  Some  of  the  more  desir- 
able and  more  favorably  located  lands  were  selling  as  high  as  $45  an 
acre,  but  $35  was  about  the  average. 

Mr.  WHITE.  One  more  question.  How  far  are  those  lands  from 
market,  from  railroad  facilities? 

Mr.  HATHORN.  There  is  a  main  line  of  the  Frisco  that  runs  through 
Blytheville — I  believe  it  is  the  Frisco — one  of  those  lines  running 
from  Memphis  to  St.  Louis.  Then  there  is  another  road  running 
from  Paragould,  Ark.,  that  splits  this  tract  wide  open.  They  are 
right  near  transportation  facilities.  Very  few  of  them  will  be  more 
than  4  miles. 

Now,  here  is  another  thought  that  has  come  into  my  mind  in  con- 
nection with  a  proposition  of  that  sort,  that  the  soldiers  who  can 
make  the  initial  payments,  naturally,  would  buy  the  first  land  that 
was  cleared  and  this  would  leave  the  land  that  was  still  being  cleared. 
That  would  give  employment  to  these  men  who  had  no  capital  and 
had  to  work  out  their  salvation  in  that  way. 


264  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Under  the  bill,  the  man  who  works  on  the  land  is 
the  man  who  is  given  the  preference  right. 

Mr.  HATHOKX.  Well,  to  be  sure;  but  the  idea  I  had  in  mind  there 
was  that  the  man  who  had  the  initial  payment,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
would  be  working  also,  but  there  would  be  so  many  of  these  men  who 
could  not  make  the  initial  payment  until  they  had  worked  out  a  large 
part  of  it,  consequently,  as  a  practical  proposition,  even  though  the 
man  that  had  the  initial  payment  had  not  done  much  work,  but  if  he 
is  working,  why  he  can  make  a  payment  right  now  and  the  thing 
would  have  a  continuous  and  progressive  development  of  the  com- 
munity a  little  earlier,  it  seems  to  rue,  than  if  the  sales  were  deferred 
until  those  who  had  to  make  their  capital  had  made  enough  to  make 
1he  initial  payment.  That  was  the  thought  that  was  in  my  mind. 

Now,  it  seems  to  me  very  important  that  these  soldiers  should 
acquire  an  actual  equity  in  the  land  as  soon  as  possible,  and  that 
when  he  has  acquired  an  equity  by  whatever  payment  he  has  made, 
that  he  should  be  allowed  to  relinquish  his  land  to  the  Government 
not  less  than  two  years  after  the  date  of  purchase,  provided — that  is, 
if  something  happens  that  it  doesn't  seem  feasible  for  him  to  go  on 
with  it,  or  it  might  be  some  of  these  blacksmiths  or  lawyers  or  sales- 
men would  get  out  there  and  try  it  a  year  or  two  and  he  would  see 
that  he  was  just  wasting  his  time,  that  he  was  physically  or  tempera- 
mentally unfitted  for  that  proposition,  and  it  would  seem  that  it 
would  be  a  hardship  on  him  if  he  was  not  able  in  some  way  to  dis- 
pose of  the  proposition  to  the  Government  and  try  something  else. 

That  point  was  brought  out  awhile  ago.  In  that  case,  suppose 
he  was  allowed  at  the  end  of  two  years  to  sell  to  the  Government 
what  he  had,  not  at  what  he  paid  for  it,  but  get  for  his  equity  what- 
ever it  might  be  in  proportion  to  the  expert  appraised  valuation  of 
the  land  and  buildings  at  the  time  that  he  relinquishes,  provided 
that  he  had  liquidated  all  the  indebtedness  for  live  stock  and  imple- 
ments. 

Mr,  FERRIS.  You  don't  want  him,  Mr.  Hathorn,  to  have  the  right 
to  either  sell  or  relinquish  or  acquire  title  until  he  reimburses  the 
Government  for  these  expenses? 

Mr.  HATHORN.  I  want  him,  sir,  to  have  the  right  at  any  time  inside 
of  10  years  to  sell  to  anybody,  except  that  the  Government  be  given 
preference  to  take  over  his  holdings;  and  that  point,  I  believe,  is 
brought  out  in  some  further  notes  I  have  here. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Your  thought  is  to  allow  the  Government  to  take  it 
back  with  a  view  of  placing  another  soldier  on  it? 

Mr.  HATHORN.  Exactly,  with  this  idea,  that  if  there  has  been  an 
increase  in  the  value  of  that  land  itself  during  this  two  years,  that, 
this  soldier  to  whom  it  seems  it  is  for  his  best  interest  to  go  some- 
where else  should  be  allowed  credit,  you  understand,  for  that  in- 
creased valuation. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  understand  there  is  a  provision  in  here  that  he 
shall  do  that  with  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior? 

Mr.  HATIIOKN.  No:  I  haven't  read  the  bill,  as  I  stated,  I  haven't 
had  an  opportunity  to  look  it  over. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Yes;  so  that  if  misfortune  overtook  the  soldier  settler 
or  if  he  found  that  he  were  temperamentally  unfit,  as  you  suggest, 
(lie  Secretary  of  the  Interior  could  authorize  him  to  transfer  to 
somebody  else  and  thereby  protect  his  investment. 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  265 

Mr.  HATHORX.  Well,  I  didn't  know  that,  and  my  experience  is  that 
where  a  thing  has  to  go  through  so  many  channels,  if  a  specific  pro- 
gram were  made  by  which  this  dissatisfied,  let  us  say,  soldier  should 
want  to  get  out,  after  a  sufficiently  guarded  appraisal  were  made,  and 
the  bill  provides  that  the  Government  should  take  it  over  at  its  ap- 
praised value  and  pay  him  whatever  equity  he  might  have,  and  sell 
to  another  soldier  or  sailor  who  had  not  yet  availed  himself  of  the 
privilege— that  is  the  thought,  the  idea  that  I  had  in  mind.  That  is 
covered  by  this  sentence :  The  privilege  of  paying  any  amount  that 
is  .still  due  after  five  years,  because  there  are  a  lot  of  them  that  do 
make  enough  money  on  these  private  projects  to  .pay  the  entire  propo- 
sition out  at  the  end  of  five  years — or  money  might  come  to  him  by 
inheritance  or  otherwise,  and  he  should  have  the  privilege  of  selling 
after  five  years,  but  the  Government  to  retain  the  right  of  buying 
any  farm  offered  for  sale  at  the  appraised  value,  to  be  resold  to  a 
sailor  or  soldier  who  has  not  already  availed  himself  of  the  privilege 
of  this  act,  or  to  those  who  already  own  land  and  who  have  made 
good  on  it — the  adjoining  farm  may  be  40  acres — and  who  is  able 
to  make  a  payment  equal  in  amount  to  the  amount  already  collected 
by  the  Government.  In  other  words,  just  take  it  over.  That  was 
the  general  idea  about  that  part  of  it. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  are  speaking  now  of  the  provisions  in  section  7, 
lines  21  to  25  on  that  question? 

Mr.  HATHORX.  Beg  pardon? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  understand  you  are  speaking  about  section  7.  You 
are  familiar  with  that? 

Mr.  HATHORX.  I  am  not,  I  have  never  seen  it.  I  have  not  had 
an  opportunity  to  even  glance  at  the  bill. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Well,  let  me  just  interrupt  you  a  minute  then  to  read 
what  it  says  here: 

"  Sec.  7.  Patents  or  deeds  to  project  lands  issued  within  10  years 
from  the  date  of  contract  of  sale  shall  contain  the  condition  that  no 
transfer,  assignment,  mortgage,  or  lease  made  during  that  time  shall 
be  v;il  id  without  the  approval  of  the  Secretary,  and  no  transfer,  as- 
signment, mortgage,  or  lease  of  any  right,  title,  or  interest  held  un- 
der a  contract  of  sale  shall  be  valid  at  any  time  without  the  ap- 
proval of  the  Secretary.  The  Secretary  shall  make  all  necessary 
regulations  for  the  carrying  out  of  the  provisions  and  purposes  of 
this  act." 

Mr.  HATHORX.  That  covers  that  point.  You  see  I  have  not  read 
that  point.  I  would  not  have  taken  up  your  time  discussing  it  if  I 
had. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  thought  you  had  not  read 'it. 

Mr.  HATHORX.  My  idea  is  that  10  years  is  the  limit  of  any  sort  of 
Government  control  over  the  land  of  any  who  may  have  paid  out 
their  indebtedness.  That  should  be  sufficient.  In  other  words,  in  my 
judgment,  after  a  rather  long  experience  among  poor  folks,  people 
that  had  to  dig  it  out  of  the  ground  if  they  ever  accomplished  any- 
thing, it  is  my  own  conviction,  gentlemen,  if  they  can't  walk  alone 
after  they  have  been  assisted  and  aided  and  helped  and  directed  by 
the  Government  for  10  years,  that  they  will  never  be  able  to  do  more 
than  crawl. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  would  a  lot  rather  answer  questions  than 
to  speak  straight  from  the  shoulder,  because  I  think  I  can  really  give 


266  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

you  more  information  that  way.     This  was  just  purely  an  after- 
thought after  I  had  heard  the  discussion  this  morning. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  no  doubt  but  what  a  proposition  of  this 
kind  is  a  practical  proposition — is  feasible? 

Mi1.  HATHORN.  None  whatever,  sir.  Yes;  as  was  suggested  by  the 
gentleman  at  the  other  end  of  the  table,  that  safe  and  conservative 
middle  ground  should  be  taken,  which  really  insures  to  the  soldier 
and  sailor  not  only  his  rights,  but  that  recognition  of  what  is  due  to 
him  that  we  all  concur  in  and  which  at  the  same  time  will  safeguard 
the  funds  of  the  Government  and  let  this  project  go  through  with 
the  minimum  of  expense  to  the  Government,  and  in  a  sensible  and 
practical  manner;  it  can  be  done.  There  is  no  question  in  my  mind 
but  what  it  can  be  done. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  you  have  covered  the  matter  pretty  thor- 
oughly. 

Mr.  BARBOTTR.  Might  I  ask  Dr.  Hathorn  one  question? 

In  these  projects  in  which  you  have  been  interested,  Doctor,  I 
presume  you  are  familiar  with  the  contracts  for  the  sale  of  the 
lands? 

Mr.  HATHORN.  You  mean  those  that  I  have  investigated? 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Yes. 

Mr.  HATHORN.  I  was  familiar  with  them  in  a  general  way,  but  I 
don't  just  recall  specifically  all  the  provisions  of  the  contracts  now. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Don't  they  restrict  to  a  certain  period  of  time,  or 
until  certain  payments  have  been  made,  the  right  to  alienate  the 
lands?  Isn't  that  a  common  provision  in  contracts  of  that  kind? 

Mr.  HATHORN.  I  don't  think  so,  sir.  for  this  reason :  Since  the  in- 
auguration of  this  particular  development  scheme,  which  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  was  instituted  by  the  Chicago  Milling  &  Lumber  Co.,  par- 
tially to  get  a  certain  profit  from  the  land,  while  they  were  always 
reasonable  in  the  prices — and  I  want  to  say  for  them  that  they 
never  went  up  that  $5  a  year,  about  what  it  averages  in  advance  until 
other  lands  were  selling  for  that  already — that  they  at  the  same  time 
recognized  the  very  great  value  that  the  development  of  this  land  that 
they  were  offering  for  sale  would  have  in  the  future  development 
of  their  lands,  as  yet  uncleared.  Now  then  they  had — according  to 
my  recollection  they  had  no  such  restriction  with  reference — and  by 
the  way,  which  I  think  would  be  a  very  wise  and  necessary  restric- 
tion in  this  project — this  Government  project — they  had  no  such  re- 
strictions as  provided  that  all  the  payments  must  be  made  before 
transfer  is  made,  but  transfer  could  be  made  after  a  considerable 
number  of  payments — I  don't  know  what  number — there  weren't 
any  restrictions  with  reference  to  that,  according  to  my  recollection. 
Certainly,  if  there  were  any  restrictions,  if  the  party  who  was  making 
the  purchases,  took  over  these  notes  and  proceeded  to  pay  them  when 
they  became  due,  they  had  no  kick  coming. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  know  what  it  costs  to  clear  that  land.. 
Mr.  Hathorn? 

Mr.  HATHORN.  I  haven't  any  intimate  data  on  that,  but  in  a  gen- 
eral way  the  sort  of  land  that  I  speak  of.  until  the  recent  very  great 
increase  in  the  cost  of  labor,  could  be  cleared,  in  the  way  that  they 
cleared  it — partially  cleared,  you  understand — at  around  $10  or  $15 
an  acre.  Now,  that  is  a  section  up  there  where  they  have  to  put  out 
hog-wire  fences  all  around,  and  if  that  w;is  cleared  just  by  man 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  267 

power,  rule  of  thumb,  it  would  cost  about  $25  to  $30  per  acre,  but 
probably  it  cost  less  than  that  when  they  cleared  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  kind  of  timber  was  it? 

Mr.  HATHORN.  Different  varieties  of  hardwood,  such  as  was  not 
suitable  for  lumbering.  In  many  instances  there  would  be  a  few 
scattering  trees  of  considerable  size,  some  underbrush,  and  a  good 
deal  of  the  switch  cane  that  grows  down  in  that  country,  but  there 
would  be  no  timber  of  any  value  that  might  be  utilized  for  any- 
thing, except  to  have  to  make  up  for  some  by-products  that  some  big 
company  could  utilize  it  for. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  The  reason  I  asked  my  question  a  moment  ago  was 
that  in  California,  in  contracts  for  the  sale  of  land  on  long-time 
payments,  we  very  often  include  a  provision  in  the  contract  for  the 
protection  of  the  vendor,  that  the  vendee  shall  not  have  the  right 
to  sell  the  land  until  a  certain  amount  has  been  paid,  without  the 
written  consent  of  the  vendor.  That  is  to  protect  the  vendor  against 
getting  some  one  in  there  who  is  not  suitable  and  who  is  not  a  good 
farmer,  and  who  will  not  properly  care  for  the  land — to  protect  him 
to  that  extent.  That  is  very  common  in  our  contracts,  and  that  is 
the  reason  why  I  asked  that  question. 

Mr.  HATHORN.  There  may  be  some  such  a  clause  as  that  in  these 
contracts  I  speak  of,  but  I  don't  know  if  there  would  be  the  same 
necessity,  on  account  of  the  great  and  rapid  development  of  this 
section  going  on. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Might  I  ask  a  question  there?  And  I  want  to  predi- 
cate this  on  the  statement  that  I  am  trying  to  develop  legislation  that 
will  be  attractive  to  the  soldier,  the  homesteader,  and  still  at  the 
same  time  properly  protect  the  Government  and  again  make  no  dis- 
tinction between  the  soldiers. 

Do  you  believe  that  a  preference  be  given  to  those  on  a  project 
established  under  the  legislation  contemplated  because  he  has  worked 
on  the  project,  as  against  a  man  who  has  not  worked  on  the  project 
and  is  ready  and  willing  and  competent  and  capable  to  take  up  a 
homestead '. 

Mr.  HATHORX.  Let  us  see — will  you  state  that  question  again?  I 
am  not  certain  that  I  have  got  it  clear. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Here  are  two  men ;  one  has  lived  in  the  city  since  the 
war:  one  goes  on  a  project — any  project — and  works.  They  both  go 
to  another  State  to  get  a  homestead  under  one  of  the  projects.  Do 
you  believe  there  should  be  any  distinction  made  as  to  which  one 
should  have  the  homestead,  or  should  the  first  applicant  receive  the 
right,  and  have  the  right  at  his  own  volition  to  file  upon  that  home- 
stead ? 

Mr.  HATHORN.  The  first  applicant,  in  my  judgment,  provided  he 
comes  up  to  such  a  standard  of  requirements  as  might  be  set. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  just  the  point,  exactly.  I  have  heard  that 
discussed  here  for  10  days.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  "  standard 
of  requirement "  ?  Can  there  be  any  distinction  between  the  men 
who  have  been  soldiers  in  this  war? 

Mr.  HATHORX.  Well,  I  don't  know.  You  know,  as  I  stated  awhile 
ago.  I  haven't  even  read  a  draft  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  RAKER.  This  is  outside  of  the  bill.  This  is  generally  speaking, 
now.  Should  there  be  any  distinction  in  legislation  against  the 
soldier  who  desires  a  homestead? 


268  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  HATHORX.  I  think  not.  specifically,  and  yet  it  seems  to  me, 
from  my  knowledge  of  human  nature  and  men,  and  of  those  qualities 
that  contribute  to  success  that  there  might  be  some  instances  where 
that  should  be  done. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well,  are  you  going  to  allow  a  governmental  board  in 
advance  to  determine  whether  a  man  is  competent  and  qualified  and 
will  make  a  successful  farmer  or  not? 

Mr.  HATHORX.  I  wouldn't  like  to  do  that. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well,  do  you  believe  that  legislation  of  that  kind 
would  be  wise  ? 

Mr.  HATHORX.  Not  specifically.  Now.  there  might  be  some  body 
whose  discretion  should  be  used  to  a  certain  extent  that  might  have 
some  sort  of  selective  power.  Perhaps  that  might  do. 

Mi-.  RAKER.  Don't  you  believe  that  any  legislation  that  will  make 
a  preference,  or  allow  a  preference,  not  only  would  be  but  ought  to 
be  distasteful  to  every  American  soldier? 

Mr.  HATHORX.  Yes,  sir;  I  certainly  do. 

Mr.  SMITH.  May  I  ask  the  gentleman  a  question  in  that  connec- 
tion? Suppose  you  are  in  charge  of  a  large  farm  and  you  are  look- 
ing for  employees  on  your  farm.  Would  you  give  the  preference 
right  to  the  man  that  had  been  reared  on  the  farm  and  was  a  reliable, 
vigorous,  industrious  man,  or  would  you  go  into  the  city  and  pick 
up  a  clerk  from  behind  the  ribbon  counter  and  give  him  a  chance  in 
comparison  with  the  other  man  ? 

Mr.  HATHORX.  My  judgment  would  be  formed  largely  by  the 
qualities,  physical  and  mental,  as  I  could  best  determine  them,  as 
.between  these  two  men,  without  any  particular  reference  to  what 
their  former  occupation  had  been;  with  this  exception,  gentlemen, 
that  seems  to  be  practical,  other  things  being  equal,  if  it  was  some 
particular  job,  some  special  work  on  the  farm  that  I  had  in  mind, 
that  I  knew  this  man  who  had  been  raised  on  the  farm  was  thor- 
oughly familiar  with,  it  is  but  natural  that  in  human  nature,  other 
things  being  equal,  I  should  choose  him,  not  because  he  wras  a  farmer 
and  the  other  fellow  was  not.  but  because  he  had  already  done  that 
particular  work  and  I  would  not  have  to  train  him ;  I  would  not  have 
to  take  time  to  train  him  to  do  the  work. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  let  us  see — here  I  come  along,  a  callow-faced 
young  man;  I  have  been  in  a  small  town  and  I  have  been  going  to 
school  for  a  year  or  so ;  my  hands  are  white  and  my  face  has  all  the 
red  bleached  out  of  it,  and  I  come  to  you  for  a  job  on  your  farm, 
general  work;  now,  here  comes  a  boy  that  has  been  on  a  farm,  raised 
on  a  farm,  his  hands  are  homey,  and  he  looks  as  though  he  could 
do  the  work ;  now  simply  because  the  one  is  raised  on  a  farm  and  the 
other  has  been  going  to  school,  would  you  take  him  and  turn  me 
down  ? 

Mr.  HATHORX.  Not  for  that  reason. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  other  reason  would  you  have?  You  just  see  the 
two  of  us.  Am  I  going  to  be  deprived  of  the  right  to  get  the  benefit 
of  legislation  of  this  kind  and  the  right  to  work  because  my  appear- 
ance is  such  that  on  first  glance  you  might  not  think  I  could  do 
the  work? 

Mr.  HATHORX.  Now,  as  I  understand  your  question,  you  are  ad- 
dressing it  to  me  as  an  individual  with  a  private  proposition,  my  own 
farm  ? 


HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS.  269 

Mr.  RAKER.  Xo :  I  am  not. 

Mr.  HATHORX.  Well,  let  us  have  that  clear. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  am  making  it  general  for  legislation.  Should  there 
!.e  anyone  to  determine  whether  a  man  will  make  a  success  on  the 
farm,  one  of  these  soldiers,  or  should  the  soldier  himself  be  given 
the  right  when  the  land  i>  thrown  open  for  homesteading,  to  ge 
there  and  say:  "I  want  this  particular  tract  of  land  here.  I  will 
meet  your  obligations." 

Mr.  HATHORX.  I  thought  I  already  stated  before  that  I  thought 
any  of  them  ought  to  have  the  opportunity  to  try  it.  That  was  my 
intention.  I  think  they  ought  to. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  you  would  make  no  distinction? 

Mr.  HATHORX.  Xo,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  Who  made  these  selections  on  these  Arkansas 
lands  ? 

Mr.  HATHORX.  The  man  himself. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  The  owner  of  the  land  had  some  option  about  it? 

Mr.  HATHORX.  To  be  sure  he  would,  but  it  was  the  men  who  bought 
the  land,  the  men  who  wanted  the  land  to  have  homes.  The  ma- 
jority of  these  soldiers  who  would  apply  under  the  provisions  of  this 
act,  if  it  is  passed,  would  be  men  who  want  to  own  homes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  One  more  question  in  the  way  of  illustration  and  then 
I  am  through.  A  boy  is  raised  on  the  farm  until  he  is  10  years  of 
age.  and  he  is  sent  to' school  and  he  graduates  from  the  high  school, 
first  from  the  grammar  school  and  then  from  the  high  school,  which 
takes  him  four  years.  Then  he  takes  five  years  at  college,  and  he 
becomes  about  21  or  22  years  of  age,  and  he  graduates.  He  was  a 
farmer's  son.  born  on  the  farm.  Now  here  comes  a  boy  who  conies 
from  town,  a  telegraph  operator  who  was  born  in  the  city.  Both 
are  capable  and  competent.  Would  you  give  the  boy  that  was  raised 
on  the  farm  with  a  college  education,  although  he  has  had  no  experi- 
ence in  farming,  the  advantage  and  the  preference  right,  as  against 
the  boy  who  has  been  a  telegraph  operator  before  in  the  city  ? 

Mr. "HATHORX.  As  an  economic  or  sentimental  proposition? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Xo,  sir;  as  a  business  proposition,  as  between  man 
and  man,  and  American  and  American  who  wants  to  make  an  honest 
living  and  a  good  farmer. 

Mr.  HATHORX.  I  would  have  to  make  a  choice.  I  can't  take  both, 
perhaps. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Xo.  Xow  would  you  make  a  distinction?  Would 
you  let  any  law  be  enacted  that  would  make  a  distinction  between 
those  two  men.  to  try  and  make  a  good  American  citizen  and  a  good 
farmer  out  of  him  ?. 

Mr.  HATHORX.  Absolutely  not. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Let  me  ask  a  question :  Then,  do  we  under- 
stand that  you  are  opposed  to  this  provision  in  the  law  which  gives 
the  preference  right  of  entry  to  the  men  who  have  been  employed  on 
these  projects  and  have  shown  by  that  fact  that  they  are  interested 
in  making  a  success  of  it  ? 

Mr.  HATHORX.  A  preference  right  in  what  way  ? 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  In  the  way  of  employment.  It  is  proposed 
in  the  bill  here  that  those  who  have  been  employed  on  the  projects 


270  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

should  be  given  the  preference  right  over  the  man  that  had  been 
living  in  the  city. 

Mr.  HATHORN.  Certainly  not.  I  am  sorry  if  I  gave  that  impres- 
sion. The  only  thing  I  recall  having  said  that  might  give  that  im- 
pression was  with  reference  to  those  men  who  might  have  the  initial 
payments,  you  understand,  and  would  not  have  to  earn  it ;  that  they 
might  be  allowed  to  buy  land,  that  was  all ;  where  they  start  on  this 
side  of  the  tract  and  start  to  build,  that  they  might  be  allowed  to 
buy  this  land,  because  they  have  the  initial  payment.  But  they  are 
working  just  the  same. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  But  it  is  provided  in  the  bill  that  those  that 
are  employed  on  the  project  shall  be  given  the  first  opportunity. 
Are  you  in  favor  of  that  ? 

Mr.  HATHORN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  listen,  Mr.  Hathorn:  Do  you  intend  to  tell  the 
committee  that  if  a  man,  a  soldier,  goes  out  and  works  on  the  project 
for  two  years,  and  here  is  a  boy  that  is  just  returned  from  Franco, 
who  has  gone  into  the  blacksmith  shop  and  worked  for  two  years — he 
worked  there  before,  but  the  proprietor  and  the  blacksmith  quit,  and 
he  hadn't  any  employment,  but  he  sees  out  here  a  farm  on  one  of  these 
projects  that  he  can  go  and  take— do  you  say  now  that  we  should 
provide  in  this  legislation  that  this  blacksmith  boy  should  not  have 
the  same  opportunity  to  get  a  home  on  that  project  as  the  boy  who 
went  and  worked  on  the  project,  and,  in  fact,  had  no  other  place  to 
work.  Would  }7ou  make  a  distinction  between  those  two  soldiers? 

Mr.  HATHORN.  That  is  a  hard  question  for  me  to  answer  without 
giving  it  more  thought  than  I  have  been  able  to  yet. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  read  three  or  four  lines  from  the 
bill  under  consideration  ?  On  page  5,  lines  3  to  8, 1  find  this  language  : 

The  Secretary  of  the  Interior  shall  make  all  necessary  regulations  for  the 
carrying  out  of  the  provisions  and  purposes  of  this  Act  and  for  safeguarding 
the  interests  of  the  settler  and  of  the  United  States  and  is  authorized  to  issue 
patents  or  deeds  for  the  public  and  private  lands  embraced  in  farms,  tracts, 
and  lots  within  projects. 

Now,  let  me  give  you  a  case  here.  When  the  country  was  opened 
where  I  now  live  in  Oklahoma,  there  were  19,500  tracts  available  for 
settlement.  There  were  250,000  men  registered.  Now,  250,000  men 
could  not  have  19,500  tracts,  whether  they  be  doctors,  lawyers,  mer- 
chants, chiefs,  rich  man,  poor  man,  beggar  man,  or  thief.  There  was 
no  way  to  give  all  of  them  tracts  of  land.  Now,  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  did  then,  as  I  assume  he  will  do  now.  work  out  rules  and 
regulations  to  determine  priorities,  so  that  the  men  who  held  the 
lucky  number,  for  example,  or  held  the  proper  drawing,  under  the 
rules  and  regulations  that  were  worked  out,  should  have  the  place, 
whether  he  be  a  banker,  a  blacksmith,  or  what-not,  and  I  assume  that 
will  be  done  here.  Judge  Raker's  question  seems  to  be  that  he  is 
worrying  about  the  priorities  of  the  case. 

Well,  nobody  wants  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  say  that  Mr. 
Barbour,  with  the  red  necktie  on,  shall  have  the  place,  and  that  the 
man  with  the  black  necktie  on  shall  not  have  the  place.  I  think  it 
is  necessary  for  them  to  work  out  rules  and  regulations,  as  this  bill 
provides  they  may  do  in  order  to  determine  priorities  among  soldiers. 
Now,  as  an  example  of  that,  let  us  take  a  given  project  of  10,000 
acres.  Some  tracts  will,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  be  worth  more 


HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS.  271 

than  others,  but  if  the  butcher  gets  that  or  the  baker  gets  that 
under  rules  and  regulations  that  are  absolutely  fair,  he  will  have 
to  abide  by  it.  Isn't  that  your  idea? 

Mr.  HATHORN.  I  see  the  reason  for  it,  certainly. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Will  you  read  page  3,  line  20,  Mr.  Ferris? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Yes ;  that  provides  that  "  Preference  shall  be  given 
to  those  who  have  been  employed  in  the  development  of  such  proj- 
ects." A^7ell,  clearly  the  man  that  creates  the  project  ought  to  be 
the  man  to  have  the  chance  to  live  on  it,  shouldn't  he  ? 

Mr.  HATHORN.  I  think  so.  I  have  already  answered  that  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  know  you  have. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  other  English-speaking  countries  the  selection 
of  the  soldiers  is  largely  in  the  hands  of  the  local  committee.  They 
have  to  make  some  selection.  They  have  to  separate  the  sheep  from 
the  goats — the  white  sheep  from  the  black  sheep,  you  know. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  And  I  am  in  favor  of  that.  I  want  to  go  on  record 
for  that. 

Mr.  HATHORN.  They  are  presumed  to  be  men  of  discretion  and 
intelligence  and  judgment.  Somebody  has  got  to  decide. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Now,  we  have  Gov.  Davis,  of  Idaho,  here  who  will  favor  us 
with  a  statement. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  D.  W.  DAVIS,  GOVERNOR  OF  IDAHO. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  at  present  Governor  of  the  State  of 
Idaho? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  came  here  to  add  just  what  little 
1  might  to  this  discussion.  I  arrived  in  the  city  last  night  and  have 
ivully  made  no  preparation. 

When  our  legislature  met  last  January  the  Government  was  de- 
sirous that  the  State  adopt  a  constructive  program  in  order  to  fur- 
nish employment  for  returned  soldiers,  and  stimulate  business  gen- 
erally. We  have  gone  into  that  matter  whole-heartedly,  and  we 
can  see  marked  benefits  on  the  constructive  program  in  our  State. 
1  think  this  is  a  great  question,  and  a  question  that  we  should  look 
at  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Nation  and  not  from  the  standpoint 
c  nly  of  a  State.  A  State,  after  all,  is  just  one  small  unit  of  the  coun- 
try as  a  whole.  Idaho  is  an  especially  favored  State  by  the  fact 
that  we  have  the  land  and  we  have  the  water.  We  can  get  quick 
action  on  development  work  in  our  State,  so  far  as  water  supply 
is  concerned,  which  is  very  great.  The  flow  of  the  Snake  River 
is  something  like  8,000,000  acre-feet  per  annum,  with  something  like 
1,000.000  acre-feet  now  in  use,  with  2,500,000  to  3,000,000  acres  of 
available  land  ready  for  irrigation.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  specula- 
tion with  us  as  to  what  can  be  done  with  land  and  water;  it  has 
been  thoroughly  demonstrated.  We  have  gone  through  the  pioneer- 
ing stage  of  irrigation ;  our  land  is  as  productive,  I  think,  as  any  in 
tli3  country,  and  is  in  demand.  It  is  well  known  throughout  the 
United  States. 

I  think  a  greater  per  cent  of  our  soldiers  than  20  per  cent,  as  has 
been  mentioned,  would  avail  themselves  of  the  opportunity  of  acquir- 
333319—19 18 


272  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

ing  a  tract  of  land  in  our  State.  They  would  be  eager  to  acquire  it. 
If  40  per  cent  of  our  soldiers  should  desire  land,  and  they  should 
desire  160  acres — I  think  that  80  acres  is  sufficient,  but  160  seems 
to  be  the  unit  that  most  men  desire — if  40  per  cent  of  our  returned 
soldiers  would  ask  for  160  acres  of  land,  it  would  require  1,600,000 
acres  to  supply  that  demand.  So  you  can  see  there  is  a  tremendous 
demand  for  this  land.  I  have  had  numerous  letters,  not  only  from 
my  own  State,  but  from  other  States  clear  to  the  Atlantic"  Coast, 
asking  about  available  land  in  our  State  and,  gentlemen,  it  is  the 
most  popular  thing  that  this  Government  could  do  for  the  recogni- 
tion of  the  soldier. 

Xow,  I  think  the  soldier  should  have  the  privilege  provided  for  in 
this  bill  and  I  think  this  10-year  provision  is  a  good  one.  I  think 
that  will  overcome  some  of  the  questions  that  you  asked  a  moment 
ago 

Mr.  JOHNSON  (interposing).  Governor,  I  would  like  to  have  you 
elaborate  on  that  because  I  am  opposed  to  that  clause.  I  am  ordi- 
narily in  favor  of  that  bill. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Xow,  the  10-year  provision,  as  I  see  it — I  am  basing 
this  on  the  experience  we  have  had  in  our  State — of  course,  the  peo- 
ple that  settled  on  reclamation  projects  in  Idaho  did  not  settle  there 
under  the  favorable  conditions  which  the  soldiers  will  settle  upon 
land  reclaimed  under  this  bill.  They  experienced  the  pioneering 
stage.  They  experienced  the  perils  of  real  hardship  in  developing 
their  lands.  A  largo,  part  of  those  people  went  on  the  lands  poorly 
equipped  financially  and  otherwise,  hoping  to  build  a  home.  They 
have,  in  very  large  measure,  been  successful,  but  during  this  period 
of  development  that  has  extended  over  a  period  now  of  some  ten 
years  they  have  seen  a  period  during  that  time  that  they  would 
have  been  glad  to  have  sold  out  at  a  nominal  fee  and  gotten  out  of 
the  country,  and  many  a  farmer  in  the  United  States  to-day  is 
wealthy  due  to  the  fact  that  he  was  unable  to  get  away  from  the 
country  at  some  period  of  its  development.  We  have  experienced 
it  through  Illinois,  Iowa,  and  clear  to  the  Pacific  Coast.  I  know 
of  men  in  Iowa  that  would  have  traded  their  land  for  sufficient  means 
to  transport  them  back  to  Indiana  or  some  eastern  State  from 
which  they  came,  that  are  to-day  wealthy,  not  due  to  their  own 
judgment  but  due  to  the  fact  that  they  were  unable  to  get  away. 

I  think  the  10-year  period  is  a  good  thing  for  the  young  man  that 
is  coming  back  from  the  Army.  He  comes  back  and  he  settles 
on  that  land  and  he  develops  it ;  he  is  going  to  build  a  substantial 
home  there;  he  is  rearing  his  children  and  they  are  coming  up,  and 
after  having  an  experience  on  the  land  of  five  or  six  years  you 
couldn't  pull  him  away  from  that  farm.  You  couldn't  take  nim 
away.  He  has  learned  to  appreciate  the  value  of  a  home,  the  indepen- 
dence of  that  home,  and  I  will  tell  you  it  is  a  good  provision,  I 
think,  and  the  provision  that  if  he  wants  to  assign  the  land  it  must 
be  assigned  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  is  a  splendid  provision. 
It  cuts  out  the  speculator.  It  cuts  out  these  men  that  would  colonize 
soldiers  for  the  purpose  of  speculating.  It  removes  that  feature  of 
it  and  it  is  a  good  thing. 

I  would  like  to  see  the  soldier  that  feels  that  he  has  made  a  mis- 
take in  settling  on  this  land  have  an  opportunity  of  assigning  the 
land  back  to  the  Government.  I  would  like  to  see  the  Government 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  273 

pay  him  every  dollar  that  he  has  put  into  it,  make  as  liberal  a  set- 
tlement as  possible  and  then  have  the  land  available  for  another 
soldier. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  And  not  for  civilians  who  might  wish  to  buy? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  that  for  some  time  to  come  the  soldiers  will  take 
all  of  the  available  land,  and  until  there  is  a  scarcity  of  soldiers,  I 
think  that  that  provision  should  be  maintained.  The  boys  went  to 
France  and  volunteered  in  the  service  of  our  country  and  we  stayed 
at  home.  Thousands  upon  thousands  are  here  now  that  would 
gladly  avail  themselves  of  the  opportunity  that  we  are  trying  to 
give  the  soldier  in  this  bill,  for  the  purpose  of  making  money.  Ihey 
have  been  taking  advantage  of  war  conditions  to  make  money  while 
the  soldier  has  been  over  there  fighting  for  his  country  for  $30  ;i 
month  and  offering  his  very  life  in  defense  of  the  institutions  thnt 
the  wild-eyed  Reds  in  this  country  are  now  trying  to  tear  down.  I 
am  not  in  favor  of  the  man  who  is  in  this  country  and  doesn't  think 
enough  of  it  to  become  an  American  citizen  and  fight  for  the  insti- 
tutions for  which  our  soldiers  fought  having  the  privilege  that  is 
now  proposed  to  be  extended  to  the  soldier  under  this  bill.  The 
soldiers  of  previous  wars  have  had  these  privileges.  The  soldiers 
of  the  Mexican  War  and  the  Civil  War  veterans  have  had  this  home- 
stead privilege,  and  I  am  very  proud  of  the  fact  that  they  were 
offered  these  privileges,  and  I  hope  that  this  Congress  will  see  that 
the  soldiers  who  are  now  returning  from  France  will  have  every 
privilege  that  we  can  possibly  extend  to  them. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Governor,  does  it  bother  you  for  me  to  .interrupt 
you  '. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Xo:  not  a  bit. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Do  you  think  that  this  would  apply  to  the  Spanish - 
American  War  veterans? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  Spanish-American  War  veterans  have  had  a  great 
opportunity  to  take  homesteads  throughout  the  West  from  the  time 
of  the  Spanish-American  War.  However.  I  am  not  opposed  to  the 
Spanish-American  War  veterans  having  some  consideration  in  this 
bill,  if  you  gentlemen  see  fit  to  extend  it  after  going  into  it.  because 
you  are  in  a  position  to  equalize  those  matters  much  better  than  I 
would  be.  because  you  are  making  it  a  daily  study. 

Mi •.  IVAKKR.  Governor,  did  we  extend  to  the  soldiers  of  the  Civil 
War  any  different  rights  than  we  have  extended  to  every  other 
American  citizen 

Mr.  DAVIS  (interposing).  I  think  not. 

Mi-.  KAKKI;.  Ju.-t  a  month — in  regard  to  homesteading.  except  that 
we  permit  him  to  use  the  time  that  he  has  served  in  the  war  as  part 
of  his  residence  on  the  land,  and  then  after  subsequent  legislation  we 
allowed  him  to  locate  at  certain  places  and  dispose  of  the  scrip — 
well,  it  was  quite  a  large  tract,  but  outside  of  that  we  didn't  really 
provide  anything  else,  did  we  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  that  is  the  only  advantage  given  the  Civil  War 
veterans. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Governor,  there  isn't  any  question  but  what  Congress 
made  an  error  in  the  scrip  proposition. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  so.    It  opened  the  doors  to  speculators. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Experience  has  taught  us  that  that  was  a  mistake. 
Xow  if  you  allow  the  soldier  under  this  bill  to  begin  again  to  alien- 


274  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIEES. 

ate  the  land  immediately  after  he  settles  upon  it,  it  almost  makes  a 
second  mistake. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes ;  I  am  absolutely  opposed  to  that  provision.  Every 
land  owner,  the  farmer,  the  man  that  farms  the  land,  becomes  a 
first-class  citizen.  He  is  a  home  owner,  and  we  need  more  home 
owners  in  the  United  States  to-day,  because  he  is  a  satisfied  citizen, 
as  a  rule;  he  rears  a  good,  strong*  healthy  American  family,  which 
is  another  benefit;  and  when  we  do  these  things  that  we  propo-  >  by 
this  bill,  remember  that  we  are  creating  a  demand  for  the  output 
from  the  industrial  centers.  That  is  where  our  trade  comes  from. 
Don't  think  that  this  is  benefiting  only  one  small  unit  of  the  United 
States,  or  a  western  State.  I  am  here  in  the  interest  of  my  State, 
but  the  benefit  will  go  to  the  whole  Nation.  The  development  and 
production  of  the  farm  makes  the  demand  and  market  for  machin- 
ery, clothing,  and  all  sorts  of  supplies.  We  can  destroy  our  cities 
and  they  may  be  rebuilt,  largely  by  the  support  of  the  rural  districts. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Of  course,  the  benefits  of  this  act  are  not  confined 
to  the  West. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Xo,  indeed:  they  are  confined  to  the  entire  Nation. 
lie  an-e  I  \\  i-h  I  had  the  statistics  here  to  show  you  the  consumption 
of  our  State,  a  small  State  from  point  of  population,  but  it  is  g -ow- 
ing and  growing  rapidly,  and  that  is  very  noticeable  by  the  ca]>a  ity 
of  the  railroads  through  Idaho.  I  remember  some  1'2  or  14  years 
ago  I  made  the  statement  to  one  of  the  railroad  officials:  "Inside 
of  10  years  you  will  be  wanting  a  doube  track  through  here."  He 
laughed  at  me.  They  need  that  double  track  now  and  have  needed 
it  i'or  the  last  four  or  five  years.  So  it  is  just  a  unit  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  whole  country,  and  I  am  glad  to  see  Congress  look  upon 
this  measure,  as  I  think  they  will,  with  favor.  I  don't  think  that 
any  Congressman  on  the  floor  of  the  House,  after  making  a  careful 
study  of  this  matter  of  reclamation,  can  honestly  and  conscientiously 
get  up  and  oppose  the  bill,  because  it  is  a  part  of  the  Nation's  de- 
velopment and  it  is  needed. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  the  purpose  to  build  one  or  more  projects 
in  each  State. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes ;  and  on  that  point  I  might  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
Idaho  is  so  equipped  with  possibilities  along  that  line  that  they 
could  go  to  work  on  very  short  notice.  And  in  regard  to  giving  the 
man  on  the  project  preference,  as  you  spoke  about  a  moment  ago,  I 
think  that  a  man  goes  to  work  on  that  project  because  he  is  in  the 
market  for  labor,  and  I  don't  think  that  the  man  in  the  blacksmith 
shop  that  you  referred  to  a  moment  ago  should  suffer — he  may  be. 
the  son  of  a  widow  with  a  large  family,  and  he  is  working  there  be- 
cause he  needs  the  labor,  and  I  don't  think  there  should  be  any  dis- 
tinction made  on  that  point.  I  think  the  blacksmith  should  have  the 
same  opportunity  as  the  follow  that  works  on  the  project  because 
he  is  there;  he  is  in  the  market  for  labor,  and  he  is  there  because 
labor  is  there. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Governor,  vour  experience  convinces  me  that  you  can 
with  much  propriety  answer  this  question  i'or  the  committee.  Where- 
ever  you  take  100  acres  of  land  that  is  unimproved  and  uncultivated, 
whether  it  lio  in  Idaho  or  in  'Penn>ylvsmiu.  it  adds  jr.st  that  ;,u;rh  to 
( he  nat  ional  wealth,  doesn't  it  ( 

Mr.  DAVIS.    Yes.  sir.  i 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  275 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  we  ought  not  to  be  too  finicky  upon  the  question 
of  whether  or  not  there  is  a  project  in  each  State,  or  which  State 
has  the  best  opportunity  to  provide  for  our  soldiers.  Now,  isn't  that 
just  about  the  situation? 

Mi-.  DAVIS.  Xo.  sir:  I  don't  think  you  should  hold  up  the  whole 
proposition  because  some  State  representative  says :  "  I  must  have 
it  in  my  State  or  I  don't  support  this  bill."  I  think  it  is  the  duty  of 
every  representative  here — because  you  are  representing  the  whole 
Nation — to  get  in  behind  the  project,  whether  it  might  benefit  his 
State  or  not.  I  think,  however,  that  your  committee  that  decides 
upon  the  projects  that  are  to  be  developed  should  make  a  close 
study  as  to  what  projects  should  be  developed  first. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  a  matter  for  the  Secretary  to  decide. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  certainly. 

Mr.  HERNANDEZ.  It  has  been  pointed  out  here  by  some  men  that 
tin  absolute  payment,  of,  say,  $5,000  to  the  returned  soldier  should 
be  made,  so  that  he  can  make  his  own  selection,  buy  his  own  farm 
;my  place  that  he  decides  to  live,  and  not  restrict  him  to  any  par- 
ticular community  or  say:  "Here,  we  have  got  a  project  in  the  Stato 
of  Idaho  or  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  or  anywhere  else,  come  on 
and  get  it  and  settle  on  it  if  you  want  to." 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  would  be  opposed  to  that. 

Mr.  HERNANDEZ.  You  don't  think  that  is  practical? 

^fr.  DAVIS.  Xo,  sir:  I  would  be  opposed  to  it.  because  the  inexperi- 
enced soldier,  you  give  him  $5,000  and  the  land  speculator  imme- 
diately jumps  in  and  may  sell  him  a  gold  brick. 

Mr.  HERNANDEZ.  Oh.  no;  place  the  same  restrictions  on  it,  of 
course. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  You  might  place  some  restrictions  around  it,  but  I  don't 
think  it  would  work  satisfactorily. 

Mr.  SMITH.  In  any  event,  there  would  be  no  opportunity  for  mak- 
ing much  of  a  profit  out  of  the  farm  if  you  had  to  pay  the  market 
value  of  it.  On  these  projects  it  is  assumed  that  the  land  will  be 
worth  twice  as  much  as  it  costs  because  of  the  cooperation  of  *K- 
Government  in  building  the  project  and  preparing  the  land  for  culti- 
vation: and  if  you  eliminate  the  opportunity  for  profit  by  loaning  a 
man  the  money  to  buy  a  farm  at  the  market  value  it  seems  to  me  the 
Government  would  be  assuming  a  pretty  big  risk  there  which  would 
not  apply  to  these  projects,  where  the  cost  of  reclamation  is  not 
nearly  as  much  as  the  land  is  actually  worth  after  it  is  reclaimed. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  that  any  man  that  went  out  wearing  the  uni- 
form of  the  United  States  and  has  good  red  blood  in  his  veins  can 
go  on  these  projects  and  remain  there  for  10  years,  and  have  a  piece 
of  land — this  would  apply  especially  in  the  West,  to  land  that  I  am 
familiar  with — a  piece  of  land  that  is  worth,  at  the  least  calculation, 
$200  an  acre,  when  patent  is  available.  Now,  where  can  he  be  as- 
sured a  better  investment  than  that  ?  The  rise  in  value  there  is  abso- 
lutely assured  because  the  productiveness  of  the  farm  is  not  keeping 
pace  with  the  increase  in  population.  I  do  not  expect  to  see  any  per- 
manent set  back  in  land  values  in  the  United  States,  so  it  will  be  to 
his  interest  to  hold  that  land.  And  I  want  to  say  again  that  I  think 
the  10-year  provision  is  a  splendid  one. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Governor,  have  you  thought  of  this  feature  that  if 
you  don't  allow  transfers,  say  within  a  reasonable  time,  say,  two 


276  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

years,  or  three  years,  or  five  years — make  it  10  years,  or  even  run 
longer — you  have  a  community  of  all  inexperienced  young  men  with- 
out any  of  the  hard-headed,  well-experienced,  properly  seasoned  men, 
like  you  have  in  every  community,  who  are  sort  of  stabilizers  to  it. 
Have  you  thought  of  that  feature,  that  we  might  overdo  this  thing, 
and  just  bring  a  lot  of  young  men  into  the  community  without  any 
of  this  experience  that  every  community  in  this  country  has  had  by 
virtue  of  the  old  man  that  has  given  30  or  40  or  50  years  to  business 
life  and  whom  the  boys  all  consult  and  who  sort  of  stabilize  them  in 
their  ideas? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Now,  the  fellow  that  goes  on  there  and  is  inexperienced 
and  feels  that  he  has  got  a  hard  road  to  hoe,  and  feels  that  he  isn't  a 
practical  farmer,  he  is  going  to  assign  back  to  the  Government. 

Mr.  RAKER.  No ;  you  dont't  want  to  let  him  assign  back. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  He  can  assign  by  the  consent  of  the  Secretary,  can  he 
not? 

Mr.  RAKER.  No. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  my  understanding  of  it. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Yes;  he  can. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  He  can  assign  back  with  the  consent  of  the  Secretary, 
and  he  can  get  off  the  land. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Yes;  he  can. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  make  a  suggestion 
to  Mr.  Raker  ?  Supposing,  Mr.  Raker,  there  are  100,000  soldiers  who 
apply  for  this  land  and  you  have  only  land  enough  for  50,000,  what 
are  you  going  to  do  with  the  other  50,000?  When  a  vacant  entry  is 
available  on  any  of  these  projects,  should  not  a  soldier  have  the  right 
to  take  it  instead  of  a  civilian? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well,  I  will  answer  the  question  if  the  chairman  di- 
rects me  to. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  will  not  direct  you  to. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  did  not  want  to  take  the  governor's  time,  that  is  all. 
I  would  like  to  answer  it,  but  I  would  rather  not  take  the  governor's 
time. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Go  ahead. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  say  that  when  a  man  has  once  assumed  his  right  and 
has  gone  upon  this  land  and  complied  with  the  law,  s,o  that  he  can 
transfer  it,  he  ought  to  have  the  right  to  transfer  it  to  whoever  he 
pleases. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  What  about  the  other  50,000  soldiers  that  do 
not  get  any  land? 

Mr.  RAKER.  They  ought  to  provide  more  projects  so  that  the  other 
50,000  may  have  homes  also. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  This  bill,  as  I  understand  it,  provides  for  a  loan  of 
$1,200,  does  it  not? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  $1,200  for  permanent  improvements  and  $800  for 
personal  property. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  a  splendid  provision,  and  the  man  that  goes 
on  to  make  a  farm  of  that  place,  in  all  seriousness,  is  going  to  get 
along  splendidly  with  that  law,  and  if  this  land  is  cleared,  put  in 
shape  for  him  to  go  right  to  farming,  he  is  going  to  have  no  trouble 
whatsoever,  and  you  are  going  to  have  a  wonderfully  prosperous 
farming  community  out  /of  any  project  that  is  so  settled. 


HOMES  FOK  SOLDIERS.  277 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Will  you  let  me  ask  you  three  or  four  general  ques- 
tions, to  the  end  that  we  may  not  be  lost  in  a  maze  here  ? 

Now,  as  to  the  proposition  of  the  Federal  Government  doing  some- 
thing for  the  returning  soldier,  there  is  no  doubt  that  that  should  be 
done,  is  there? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  there  is  no  difference  of  opinion  among  us  about 
that,  is  there? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No ;  I  think  not. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Either  in  or  out  of  Congress  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Well,  as  to  the  necessity  of  this  Government  doing 
what  it  has  done  in  the  past,  giving  some  recognition  to  the  soldiers, 
and  as  to  this  Government  doing  what  other  Governments  have  done 
for  soldiers,  there  is  no  difference  of  opinion  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Now,  it  is  true  in  every  State  /of  the  Union  there  are 
large  areas  of  idle  land  not  being  put  to  any  productive  use? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  on  every  hand  there  are  large  unproductive  areas 
in  every  State  in  the  Union.  Now,  that  being  true,  can  there  be  any 
doubt  that  it  will  be  financially  beneficial  to  the  Government  to  have 
those  nonproductive  areas  made  productive? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Absolutely;  it  will  be  beneficial  all  along  the  line. 
That  is  very  clear. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  There  can't  be  any  doubt  about  that,  can  there? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No,  sir.  V 

.    Mr.  FERRIS.  That  every  nonproductive  acre  made  a  productive  acre 
has  benefited  the  country  and  the  community  in  which  it  is  located  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  has  added  to  the  wealth  and  the  population  and 
general  development  of  the  whole  country. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Then  if  we  have  4.000,000  returning  soldiers — more 
than  that — 4,500,000  returning  soldiers  and  sailors  that  must  be 
assimilated  into  society,  nobody  would  be  foolish  enough  to  think 
that  any  very  large  percentage  of  them  will  be  interested  in  this 
proposition.  "The  man  who  has  a  good  position  in  a  bank  doesn't 
want  a  homestead.  He  wants  to  go  back  and  take  his  job  again,  and 
the  man  who  is  an  oil  expert  wants  to  go  back  and  work  as  an  oil 
expert ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  there  are  thousands  that  have  nothing 
to  go  back  to  and  nothing  in  their  pockets  and  nothing  in  life  other 
than  to  try  to  get  hold  somewhere,  and  isn't  it  proper  that  a  Govern- 
ment as  wealthy  as  ours  and  as  powerful  as  ours,  which  has  made 
$11,000,000,000  of  loans  to  the  foreign  Governments— isn't  it  proper 
that  this  Government  do  something  to  stimulate  some  activity  and 
throw  out  some  ray  of  hope  to  these  returning  soldiers  who  have 
nothing? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Absolutely  so. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Well,  on  those  salient  facts  then  we  are  not  in  dis- 
agreement. Then  isn't  it  the  duty  of  the  Government  and  of  Con- 
gress, the  men  in  the  Houses  of  Congress,  to  set  themselves  to  the 
task  of  doing  something,  and  isn't  that  something  done  in  this  bill, 
aside  from  some  minor  differences  as  indicated? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir:  it  is  true,  and  it  is  right  in  line  with  the  debt 
of  gratitude  that  we  owe  these  men  and  that  we  can  never  pay. 


278  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Precisely.  Now,  it  is  in  evidence  here — I  don't  know 
whether  you  have  heard  it  or  not — one  witness  appeared  here  yester- 
day who  very  urgently  insisted  that  this  ought  to  be  applicable  to 
the  nonsoldier  the  same  as  the  soldier. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  xVbsolutely  not. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Can  any  thoughtful  man  subscribe  to  such  a  theory 
such  as  that? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  would  that  be  fair  to  our  soldiers  to  adopt  any 
such  thing  as  that? 

Mr:  DAVIS.  I  think  it  would  be  absolutely  unfair. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Another  witness  appeared  here  who  was  very  earnest 
in  his  opposition  on  the  ground  that  this  allowed  the  soldier  finally 
to  acquire  title.  He  wanted  him  to  be  a  tenant  for  life,  a  tenant  for 
a  term,  or  something  of  that  sort,  retaining  title  in  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment. Can  any  considerable  portion  of  our  citizenship  subscribe 
to  any  such  plan  as  that  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  would  be  opposed  to  that. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Would  that  settle  the  West  or  the  South,  or  any  of 
the  unproductive  areas,  any  such  scheme  as  that? 

•Mr.  DAVIS.  It  seems  to  me  that  would  rob  us  of  the  very  thing  we 
must  have  in  order  to  build  up  a  good  citizenship  in  the  United 
States. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Passing  from  that  to  one  thought  that  is  very  preva- 
lent over  in  the  House — I  think  it  is  very  prevalent  on  my  side  of  the 
House — I  want  to  see  what  your  views  are  about  that.  There  is  a 
line  of  thought  over  there  among  lots  of  very  good  Members  of  the 
House — they  are  agitating  it  very  vigorously,  some  of  them — that  we 
ought  to  make  this  a  loan  proposition,  a  lump-sum  loan  of  $5,000  or ' 
$6,000 — whatever  it  is  to  buy  a  farm  and  turn  it  over  to  the  soldier 
and  cut  him  loose.  Now,  is  that  a  practical  proposition  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  not.  I  think  the  proposed  plan  is  much  better 
because  it  creates  a  spirit  of  development  that  brings  real  develop- 
ment, and  it  is  a  constructive  program. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  If  the  Government  should,  along  the  line  of  some  of 
these  bills  and  some  of  these  views  here,  hold  out  and  publicly  an- 
nounce that  they  would  lend  100  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  farm 
and  let  the  soldier  buy  or  select  a  farm  wherever  he  will  in  the  United 
States,  it  is  true  that  a  great  portion  of  the  soldiers  would,  of  course, 
respond  to  that,  would  they  not? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  But  wouldn't  it — from  the  very  standpoint  of  impossi- 
bility of  performance — woudn't  it  fall? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes;  and  then  who  would  reclaim  these  undeveloped 
areas  in  the  United  States,  if  we  adopt  that  plan  ? 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Did  I  understand  the  governor  to  say  that  in  Okla- 
homa you  had  a  scheme  whereby  you  loaned  farmers — settlers — 100 
per  cent? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Our  legislature  made  an  effort  to  do  that,  saying,  if  I 
may  answer  that — and  it  is  done  to  meet  a  situation  like  this — we 
are  trying  to  reduce  tenantry  in  our  State,  where  the  land  all  be- 
longed to  Indians  and  the  white  man  had  to  step  in  there  and  get  hold 
as  best  they  can  as  tenants,  and  it  has  reached  such  a  stage  that  it 
is  developing  socialism,  I.  W.  W.-ism,  and  everything  else  of  that 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  279 

kind  down  there;  and  it  is  the  effort  of  our  government  and  the 
effort  of  our  legislature  to  try  to  meet  this  situation.  I  know  our 
State  can't'  carry  the  load  that  will  be  demanded  of  it.  We  will 
carry  it  as  far  as  we  can,  and  of  course  I  would  like  to  see  the  Fed- 
eral Government  carry  it,  if  you  can ;  but  you  can't  get  a  bill  through 
Congress,  I  don't  think,  that  will  authorize  the  Government  to  take 
from  all  the  people  and  give  outright  a  sum  of  money  like  that — 
five  or  six  or  ten  thousand  dollars — to  these  4,000,000  soldiers.  The 
Treasury  wouldn't  stand  it,  in  the  first  place,  and  the  people  wouldn't 
indorse  it  in  the  second  place,  and  it  is  not  feasible  in  the  third  place, 
and,  in  the  fourth  place,  the  soldier  doesn't  want  a  sugar  tit  rammed 
into  his  mouth  and  be  made  a  child  of;  all  he  ought  to  want  is  the 
opportunity  to  make  good. 

Mr.  Davis,  all  the  soldier  wants,  coming  back  from  France,  is  a 
chance.  Every  man  I  have  talked  with  says :  "  We  don't  want  any- 
thing given  to  us.  We  want  a  chance  to  do  something;  that  is  all.'' 
They  are  coming  back  after  seeing  what  has  been  done  over  in  the 
old  countries,  and  they  appreciate  more  now,  I  believe,  than  ever 
before  the  value  of  a  home,  and  that  is  going  to  work  to  our  everlast- 
ing benefit  in  this  country.  There  is  really  too  much  consideration 
given  to  people  that  are  not  absolutely  loyal  to  this  country  and  not 
good  citizens  to-day  and  not  really  the  class  of  people  that  go  to  build 
up  good  red-blooded  American  citizenship. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  would  like  to  ask  this  question,  Governor :  Viewed 
from  the  standpoint  of  a  reclamation  project,  would  you  consider  this 
is  the  best  economic  project  that  could  be  arranged  for? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Well,  I  am  not  in  a  position  to  go  into  the  details  of  this 
bill.  You  perhaps  will  work  out  a  better  bill,  but  the  present  bill  is  a 
good  bill.  It  has  splendid  features  in  it. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  am  speaking  now  only  from  the  reclamation  side 
of  it.  You  asked  the  question  a  while  ago,  who  is  going  to  do  the 
reclaiming  if  we  don't  provide  for  it  in  this  bill.  Now,  from  that 
standpoint  alone,  is  this  the  best  thing  to  do  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  You  take  in  our  State  now — may  I  just  answer  your 
question  by  saying  what  the  conditions  are  there?  The  real  impor- 
tant thing  in  our  State  at  the  present  time  is  the  building  of  a  dam  on 
Snake  River,  where  the  Oregon  Short  Line  crosses  it,  that  would  im- 
pound the  run-off  of  Snake  River  and  make  it  possible  for  us  to  store 
there  tAvo  and  a  half  to  three  million  acre-feet  of  water  by  the  con- 
struction of  a  dam  90  feet  high,  and  not  a  very  long  one  at  that.  That 
makes  the  water  available.  Now,  I  think  that  the  Government  is  the 
party  to  do  that  work. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  That  is  not  the  question  at  all.  I  have  no  doubt 
about  the  practicabilit}7  of  reclamation  and  I  am  not  in  the  least 
doubtful  on  that  question,  but  as  to  the  putting  of  this  thing  entirely 
in  the  hands  of  the  soldier,  is  that  the  most  economical  from  a  merely 
utilitarian  standpoint?  That  was  the  question  raised  by  a  former 
remark  of  yours. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Make  it  available,  you  mean,  for  the  soldier? 
Mr.  BENHAM.  Shall  the  work  be  confined  by  the  Government  to 
soldiers  only? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Well,  I  don't  know  that  that  restriction  should  be 
thrown  about  it. 


280  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  And  should  the  work  done  there  be  governmentized. 
or  shall  we — in  short,  have  you  gone  into  it  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  building  of  improvements  and  the  present  amount  of  work  done 
by  our  section  men  on  the  railroad  under  Government  management? 
Are  we  justified  in  assuming,  in  short,  that  that  is  to  be  the  permanent 
reclamation  system  of  the  Government  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  for  the  present  the  soldiers  should  be  given 
preference  on  this  work.  The  soldier  should  be  given  employment. 
I  do  think,  however,  that  the  work  should  be  dene  in  the  shortest 
possible  time,  and  if  soldier  labor  is  not  in  sufficient  quantity  at  the 
particular  place  it  should  be  offered  to  civilian  labor,  whatever  is 
available. 

If  there  are  no  other  questions,  I  want  to  thank  the  committee 
very  much. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  thank  3-011  very  much.  Governor,  for  your 
statement. 

Gentlemen,  it  is  after  12  o'clock,  and  the  committee  will  stand  ad- 
journed until  to-morrow  morning  at  10  o'clock. 

(Whereupon  at  12.25  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  committee  adjourned  until 
10  o'clock  a.  m.,  Saturday.  June  7,  1919.) 


COMMITTEE  ox  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS, 

HOUSE  or  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Saturday,  June  7,  1919. 

The  committee  met  at  10.15  o'clock  a.  in.,  Hon.  Nicholas  J.  Sinnott 
(chairman)  presiding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  come  to  order.  It  was  under- 
stood yesterday  that  Mr.  Morgan  should  go  on  this  morning  for  15 
minutes — wasn't  it?  I  believe  his  time  was  extended  to  30  minutes. 
The  committee  will  be  glad  to  hear  Mr.  Morgan  now. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  DICK  T.  MORGAN,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN 
CONGRESS  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  OKLAHOMA. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  your  bill  in  the  file,  Mr.  Morgan? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  There  will  be  some  here.  They  promised  me  yester- 
day they  Avoulcl  be  here,  and  my  secretary  will  bring  some  in  in  just 
a  few  minutes. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands,  I 
appreciate  very  much  the  courtesy  you  have  extended  me,  especially 
in  permitting  me  to  talk  to  you  for  30  minutes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  have  been  limiting  all  members  of  the  House 
to  15  minutes. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Yes;  especially  when,  on  account  of  the  large  num- 
ber that  desired  to  be  heard,  you  have  been  limiting  members  of 
Congress  to  15  minutes. 

I  have  made  an  honest  effort  to  prepare  a  bill  which  I  think  has 
considerable  merit.  I  hope  that  the  committee  will  allow  me  to  pro- 
ceed with  my  statement  until  most  of  my  time  shall  be  exhaust ;M I. 
in  order  that  I  may  cover  the  ground  without  interruption,  although 
I  would  be  very  glad  to  answer  any  questions  that  may  be  put  to  inc. 

T  wish  to  sav  also,  by  way  of  introduction,  that  I  am  just  like 
you  memnors  of  tlio  committee,  all  of  you.  without  exception,  in  favor 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  281 

of  doing  anything  within  reason  that  the  National  Government  can 
do  to  recognize  the  services  rendered  by  our  soldiers  and  seamen.  I 
have  no  prejudice,  I  believe,  against  the  Mondell  bill — or  what  might 
be  called  Secretary  Lane's  plan — and  yet  after  somewhat  serious 
study— and  I  know  conscientious  study — I  have  concluded  that  we 
can  prepare,  and  Congress  can  enact,  a  bill  which  will  accomplish 
the  purpose  much  better  than  the  plan  presented  by  Secretary  Lane. 
If  the  Lane  proposition  shall  be  brought  to  vote,  and  other  propo- 
sitions shall  be  voted  down,  I  shall,  of  course,  support  the  Lane 
measure,  and  do  not  appear  in  opposition  to  the  measure  so  much  as 
I  do  for  the  purpose  of  giving  you  my  ideas  of  what  I  think  would 
be  a  better  way. 

The  bill  which  I  have  intrduced,  No.  5027  (reintrpduced  as  H.  R. 
554.")),  presents  a  plan  to  provide  home  for  the  soldiers  by  utilizing 
a  loan  plan.  It  is  not  a  reclamation  project,  but  it  creates  an  organi- 
zation whereby  the  soldiers  may  secure  homes  through  obtaining 
loans.  It  creates  a  Government  corporation,  called  the  "  Soldiers' 
and  Seamen's  Federal  Home  Founding  Corporation."  I  believe  jthat 
a  corporation  can  attend  to  this  business  much  better,  more  satisfac- 
torily all  around,  then  it  can  be  attended  to  by  a  Cabinet  officer  and 
a  bureau  in  any  of  our  departments.  The  corporation  is  the  modern 
marvel  as  an  instrument  for  transacting  business,  and  here  is  a  great 
business  proposition,  whatever  plan  you  may  adopt,  and  I  think  it 
can  be  done  much  better  through  a  corporation.  So  I  create  a  cor- 
poration with  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  as  the  President  of  the 
corporation,  and  to  be  controlled  and  operated  and  managed  by  four 
other  persons,  constituting  with  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  the 
board  of  trustees.  These  four  members  are  to  be  appointed  by  the 
President,  confirmed  by  the  Senate,  and  receive  salaries  of  $7,500  each 
annually. 

I  create  a  county  board  in  each  county,  consisting  of  the  post- 
master of  the  county  seat  town,  the  agricultural  county  agent,  and 
one  other  person  to  be  appointed  by  the  corporation,  and  that  gives 
the  machinery  to  reach  out  from  the  National  Capital,  where  the 
corporation  is  located,  out  into  every  county  and  community  of  the 
Nation.  And  I  think  if  Secretary  Lane's  plan  is  adopted,  that  it 
would  be  better  to  have  that  managed  by  a  corporation  than  it  would 
be  by  a  Cabinet  officer  and  a  bureau.  I  haven't  time,  of  course,  to 
give' all  the  reasons  why  I  think  that  would  be  true,  but  I  think  that 
is  a  fact. 

Now,  in  preparing  this  bill  I  have  had  three  main  things  in  view. 
First,  I  wanted  to  present  a  plan  that  would  benefit  or  help  the 
largest  number  of  soldiers.  Second,  a  plan  that  would  be  conducted 
with  the  least  expense  to  the  taxpayers  of  the  Nation.  Third,  a 
plan  that  would  confer  its  benefits  upon  every  State  and  upon  every 
community  alike  throughout  the  entire  length  and  breadth  of  the 
Nation. 

One  of  my  chief  objections  to  the  Lane  plan  is  that  so  few  soldiers 
will  ever  receive  any  benefit  from  it. 

For  instance,  the  Mondell  bill  is  exclusive — that  is,  it  excludes  a 
large  number  of  the  soldiers.  In  the  first  place,  it  only  provides  for 
farm  homesteads.  We  know  that  at  the  present,  and  for  all  time  to 
come,  50  and  probably  60  per  cent  of  all  these  soldier  boys  will  reside 


282,  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

in  the  towns  and  cities,  so  that  to  start  out  with,  you  propose  a  prop- 
osition that  60  per  cent  of  the  soldiers  never  can  utilize.  More  than 
that,  it  excludes  those  who  are  the  owners  of  homes.  I  don't  know 
what  number  that  would  be,  but  taking  the  average,  that  might  ex- 
clude 25  per  cent — probably  not  that  many — of  soldiers,  because  if 
they  own  homes  they  can't  get  the  benefit  of  it. 

Then,  it  excludes' those  who  are  not  able  to  put  up  5  per  cent  of 
the  purchase  price  to  start  on.  You  exclude  those — because  every 
farm  must  have  improvements — you  exclude  those  who  are  not  able 
to  pay  25  per  cent,  I  believe  it  is,  of  the  cost  of  the  improvements,  and 
you  exclude  those  from  getting  a  loan  for  live  stock  and  equipment — 
and  every  farm  must  have  equipment — who  are  not  able  to  pay  40 
per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  live  stock  and  equipment;  and  that  would 
amount  to,  in  my  judgment,  on  an  average  of  about  $1.200  to  every 
soldier.  In  other  words,  you  exclude  those  who  are  not  able  to  put 
up  $1,200  to  start  on,  and  that  would  exclude  a  very  large  number  of 
them. 

More  than  that,  there  is  a  provision  in  there  that  only  "approved 
applicants  "  can  take  advantage  of  that  bill.  How  many  that  would 
exclude,  no  one  can  tell. 

Another  provision  which  is  exclusive  in  its  character,  because  it 
sa}7s  that  those  who  perform  labor  on  these  projects  shall  have  a 
preference  right  to  purchase  the  land.  So,  conditionally,  you  ex- 
clude those  who  don't  perform  labor  on  these  projects. 

This  bill  proposes  to  appropriate  now  $500,000,000.  That,  accord- 
ing to  the  best  estimates,  would  provide  homes  for  about  100,000  men, 
to  buy  the  land  and  improve  it.  Now,  that  100,000  men  would  be  only 
24  per  cent  of  the  4,000,000  men  who  have  been  enlisted  and  enrolled 


National  Congress,  having  in  our  keeping  the  molding  and  the  fixing 
of  this  legislation,  ought  to  pass  a  bill  that,  from  the  very  nature  and 
character  of  it,  can  benefit  only  a  small  percentage  of  the  soldiers.  In 
my  bill  I  have  laid  the  bars  clear  down.  The  fact  that  a  man  is  hon- 
orably discharged  is  the  only  certificate  that  he  needs  to  give  him  the 
benefit  of  every  single  provision  in  the  bill,  and  that  is  all  that  any 
man  ought  to  be  required  to  have.  Whatever  we  do  for  the  soldiers, 
wre  ought  to  treat  them  all  alike,  and  not  surround  our  legislation 
with  limitations  and  restrictions  and  exclusions  that  will  exclude  90 
per  cent,  probably,  of  the  soldiers. 

Now,  why  does  my  bill  provide  that — take  them  all  in  it?  Because 
I  provide,  in  the  first  place,  for  two  kinds  of  loans — long-time  loans, 
running  from  40  to  60  years,  and  short-time  loans,  running  less  than 
5  years.  I  provide  a  loan  of  $4,000 — of  course,  that  is  arbitrary;  it 
may  be  too  much,  it  may  be  too  little — $4,000  on  a  long-time  loan, 
providing  that  the  loan  may  be  made  up  to  the  full  value  of  the 
homestead  purchased;  that  not  requiring  a  man  to  pay  5  per  cent  or 
1  per  cent  or  10  per  cent ;  but  he  can  get  a  loan  to  the  full  value  of  the 
home,  and  that  is  the  only  way  you  can  make  it  equal  and  fair  for 
every  man,  every  soldier.  You  must  not  put  a  property  qualification 
in  w^hich  restricts  our  soldiers  from  getting  the  benefit  of  this  bill; 
and  I  believe  if  the  Lane  bill  is  passed  all  those  restrictions  ought 
to  be  stricken  out. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  283 

/ 

Then  I  provide  for  a  short-time  loan,  not  exceeding  five  years,  to 
purchase  live  stock  and  farm  implements,  and  I  authorize  this  loan 
to  be  made  up  to  the  full  value  of  that  live  stock  and  farm  equip- 
ment. I  know  that  that  is  not  according  to  the  general  principles  of 
the  loan  business,  for  a  bank  expects  to  get  chattels  worth  two  or 
three  times  the  value  of  the  loan;  and  yet  I  believe  that  we  can 
adopt  that  kind  of  a  system,  and  by  using  other  methods  really  save 
the  (Tovernirient  from  any  material  loss  through  the  failure  to  pay 
those  loans. 

The  question  of  the  financing  of  the  corporation  or  the  proposi- 
tion is.  of  course,  very  important,  so  one  of  my  propositions  is  that 
we  should  enact  legislation  that  will  help  the  soldiers  with  the  least 
possible  expenditure  of  cash  out  of  the  Treasury.  Xow,  that  is  our 
duty  for  the  next  10  or  20  or  30  or  40  or  50  years,  perhaps.  We  are 
going  to  be  burdened  with  taxation  for  this  work. 

The  plan  presented  in  the  Mondell  bill  and  by  Mr.  Lane  requires 
an  absolute  cash  investment  for  every  home  that  is  secured  for  these 
soldiers.  He  is  authorized  to  purchase  the  land  and  to  reclaim 
the  land,  either  by  drainage  or  by  irrigation;  to  improve  these 
lands — buy  these  lands  and  improve  them  and  reclaim  them  and  pay 
all  of  ihi^  money  out,  every  cent  of  it,  in  absolute  cash,  by  an  appro- 
priation out  of  the  Treasury.  Now,  that  is  not  good  business  meth- 
ods for  this  Government  to  pursue.  Under  my  plan  I  use  ordinary 
business  methods  in  the  financing  of  the  proposition.  How  do  I  do 
that  ?  I  adopt  those  principles  of  business  that  we  adopted  largely 
in  the  Federal  land  bank  and  that  are  adopted  in  many  countries 
of  the  world  in  financing  propositions  similar  to  this.  I  authorize 
this  corporation  to  issue  long-time  bonds  to  cover  the  amount  of 
loans  made  on  long-time  loans. 

I  authorize  it  to  issue  short-time  bonds,  riot  running  over  five  years, 
in  order  to  secure  the  funds  necessary  to  make  the  short-time  loans. 
I  have  given  this  corporation  under  the  bill  a  capital  of  $100,000,000. 
That  is  not  designed  to  furnish  the  actual  money  to  carry  on  this 
great  project  for  furnishing  homes  for  4,000,000  men,  but  it  is 
merely  a  working,  an  operating,  fund  by  which  they  must  carry  on 
this  business.  So  a  certain  percentage  will  be  set  aside  to  operate 
the  short-time  loans,  a  certain  percentage  to  operate  the  long-time 
loans,  and  the  corporation  issues  bonds  corresponding  to  the  amount 
of  loans  made  in  each  class,  and  to  pay  those  bonds  the  corporation 
l.as  these  mortgages. 

Xow,  the  question  comes — it  will  be  said  that  there  will  be  a  great 
many  losses  on  these  short-time  loans  as  well  as  upon  the  long-time 
loans,  because  the  corporation  loans  up  to  the  full  value,  a  principle 
that  is  not  adopted  in  ordinary  loan  business.  In  order  to  meet  that 
proposition,  however,  I  do  this.  The  long-time  bonds  are  to  bear 
one-half  of  1  per  cent  interest  annually  less  than  the  loans.  The 
bonds,  we  will  say,  bear  3|  per  cent  interest,  and  they  loan  this 
money  at  4  per  cent  interest.  That  will  give  one-half  of  1  per  cent 
annually  margin  upon  all  these  loans  as  a  fund  to  go  into  what  I 
call  a  guarantee  fund  in  order  to  meet  the  losses  that  the  corporation 
may  have  in  operating  this  business  in  long-time  loans. 

In  tho  short-time  loans,  the  loans  are  to  be  made  at  1  per  cent  annu- 
ally higher  thnn  the  1  on  Is  bear.  If  the  bonds  bear  4  per  cent  interest. 


284  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

the  loans  are  made  at  5  per  cent,  giving  the  corporation  a  margin  of  1 
per  cent  annually. 

Just  to  illustrate  what  that  would  amount  to,  we  will  say  we  have 
a  capital  of  $100,000,000,  and,  for  illustration,  that  we  have  made 
loans  of  $500,000,000  long-time  loans  and  short-time  loans  of  $200,- 
000,000.  Now,  here  would  be  the  proposition  on  that  kind  of  a  busi- 
ness. The  capital,  of  course,  is  practically  all  the  time  a  producing 
capital.  It  is  loaned  out  on  these  propositions,  so  that  the  corpora- 
tion will  receive  from  3  to  4  per  cent  interest  on  that  $100,000,000  of 
capital,  which  will  be  net  profit,  which  would  bring,  I  estimate. 
$3,500,000.  There  will  be  one-half  of  1  per  cent  interest  on  the 
$500,000,000  loan,  which  would  bring  the  corporation  a  net  profit  of 
$2,500,000. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Did  you  say  $500,000  or  $500,000,000  ? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  On  the  $500,000,000.  One  per  cent  interest  net 
profit  on  the  $200,000,000  loan,  short-time  loans,  would  bring  $2.000,- 
000  net  profit.  In  other  words,  on  that  proposition  the  corporation 
would  have  in  the  guaranty  fund  $4,500,000  annually  and  have  an 
income  from  the  capital  of  $3,500,000  annually,  or  a  net  annual  in- 
come of  $8,000,000. 

Now,  I  couldn't  say  that  that  would  meet  all  the  losses.  We  don't 
know ;  but  it  would  probably  more  than  meet  all  the  losses  if  this  cor- 
poration exercised  proper  care  and  watchfulness  over  these  loans, 
which,  of  course,  the  corporation  should  do.  So  that  this  whole  prop- 
osition— you  can  take  $100,000,000,  and,  without  another  appropri- 
ation out  of  the  National  Treasury,  without  another  cent  of  taxation, 
you  can  give  homes  to  a  million  or  more  of  our  soldiers.  These  bonds 
out  on  the  market  and  are  sold. 

Then  there  comes  another  question  as  to  the  question  of  interest. 
In  order  to  get  a  low  rate  of  interest,  and  in  order  to  be  able  to  sell 
these  bonds  in  large  quantities,  it  is  necessary  for  the  Government  to 
guarantee  these  bonds,  but  it  is  better  for  the  Government  under  pres- 
ent and  future  conditions  to  loan  its  credit  to  carry  out  this  proposi- 
tion than  it  is  to  give  the  cash,  because  that  cash  must  come  through 
taxation,  every  cent  of  it.  but  if  the  Government  simply  guarantees 
these  bonds,  both  the  principal  and  interest,  it  would  not  require  any 
taxation,  except  the  small  amount  that  is  used  in  the  operating  fund. 
Now,  that  is  a  wide  difference,  especially  when  it  might  take  two,  four, 
five,  six,  or  eight  billion  dollars  to  carry  out  this  project;  and  I  hold 
that  even  if  you  adopt  Secretary  Lane's  plan,  you  ought  to  change 
your  method  of  financing.  You  ought  to  create  a  corporation,  put  a 
Cabinet  officer  at  the  head  of  it,  let  these  projects  be  surveyed  with  the 
utmost  care,  and  receive  estimates  as  to  what  it  will  take  to  carry  them 
out ;  then  let  that  corporation  issue  bonds,  under  the  guaranty  of  the 
Government,  and  finance  the  proposition  that  way.  You  would  make 
an  appeal  to  the  public,  to  the  soldiers  and  their  friends  to  buy  these 
bonds  in  preference  to  other  classes  of  securities.  That  is  'my  idea 
about  the  financing  of  the  proposition.  Now.  in  every  kind  of  busi- 
ness, 1  don't  rare  Avhat  it  is — banking  or  mercanlile  business,  what- 
ever it  may  be — there  are  always  certain  losses.  How  are  those  losses 
made  up  ? 

The  banker  don't  pay  those  losses;  he  simply  charges  a  higher  rate 
of  interest  in  order  to  get  enough  from  those" who  are  good  to  make 
up  the  losses  of  those  who  turn  out  to  be  failures  and  not  to  pay, 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  285 

and  all  we  need  to  do  is  to  utilize  that  same  principle  which  goes 
through  every  kind  and  character  of  business.  Let  the  soldiers 
themselves,  and  they  will  be  glad  to  feel  that  they  are  cooperating 
with  each  other:  that  they  are  helping  those  who  are  unfortunate; 
who  through  sickness  or  some  other  unfortunate  occurrence  are 
unable  to  meet  their  interest  payments  and  their  annual  payments 
and  may  default,  and  the  soldiers  will  feel  when  they  are  paying  a 
little  extra  interest  that  it  is  going  out  to  help  those  who  are  unfor- 
tunate, those  other  comrades,  and  they  will  do  it  cheerfully  and 
gladly. 

How  much  time  have  I  used,  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  started  at  10.15.     You  have  used  25  minutes. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Xow  just  one  other  point  there,  and  that  is  the 
question  of  extending  these  benefits — one  other  point  that  I  have 
not  brought  out — under  my  plan  the  soldier  can  buy  his  home  in 
the  town  or  city  or  in  the  country,  as  he  chooses.  This  is  a  home- 
building  proposition.  If  the  idea  is  that  we  are  going  to  recognize 
the  services  that  these  soldiers  rendered,  and  at  the  same  time  make 
them  better  citizens  by  giving  them  homes,  and  it  is  a  home-building 
proposition,  then  we  ought  to  help  build  homes  in  the  towns  and 
cities  as  well  as  we  should  in  the  country.  It  is  not  an  agricultural 
proposition;  it  is  a  soldier  proposition,  and  therefore  we  ought  to 
extend  these  benefits  to  the  60  per  cent,  perhaps,  of  our  soldiers  who 
must  live  in  the  town  or  city,  to  the  great  army  of  men  who  work  in 
our  factories  and  mills  and  shops  and  manufacturing  establishments, 
as  well  as  in  all  of  our  commercial  institutions — extend  this  to  those 
soldiers  and  promote  home  building  in  our  towns  and  cities,  where 
it  is  really  as  much  in  demand  as  it  is  in  the  country.  So  that  my 
proposition  extends  to  all,  in  the  town  or  in  the  city  or  in  the  country. 

Xow  I  think  there  is  something  in  having  the  benefits  of  this  legis- 
lation extend  alike — I  _sny  extend  alike — to  every  State  and  to  every 
community  in  every  State.  Some  of  you  men  who  live  in  States 
where  there  are  lands  to  be  drained  or  reclaimed  from  timber,  or 
irrigated,  you  may  naturally  and  rightfully  say,  I  think,  "  "Well, 
this  is  a  good  proposition  for  my  State."  But  if  we  are  appropriating 
large  sums  of  money  out  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  it  is 
foi-tjunly  worth  while  to  see  if  we  can't  adjust  it  so  that  the  benefits 
of  it  will  go  to  every  State  alike.  But  even  in  a  State — take  my 
own  State — we  may  have  a  little  proposition  down  there;  our  gov- 
ernor talked  yesterday  and  suggested  that  we  h,ad  land  that  could 
be  utilized,  but  that  would  only  be  a  little  area  in  some  particular 
locality  of  the  State;  it  wouldn't  give  any  general  benefit  to  all  the 
communities  of  that  State,  but  under  my  plan  whatever  benefits, 
general  indirect  benefits,  there  are  in  the  act  would  go  not  only  to 
every  State  alike  but  it  would  go  to  every  single  community  alike 
in  the  country,  in  the  little  village,  in  the  larger  towns,  and  in  the 
great  cities  of  this  Nation.  Everywhere  its  benefits  would  reach  out 
and  would  be  within  the  reach  of  every  one  of  those  brave  men  who 
did  their  duty  in  that  great  war. 

Xow  I  am  ready  to  answer  any  questions  if  you  desire  to  ask  them. 

Mr.  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Morgan,  the  committee  has  had  no  oppor- 
tunity to  examine  into  your  bill.  I  suppose  they  will  do  that  in 
executive  session.  There*  are  a  few  questions  that  I  want  to  ask  you. 


286  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Does  your  bill  provide  for  any  organization  to  do  the  work  itself, 
to  put  these  farms  in  shape,  either  as  a  separate  unit,  or  in  a  large 
area  ? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  There  is  a  provision  in  there  that  authorizes  the 
corporation  to  buy  lands  and  lay  them  off,  either  subdivide  them  to 
sell  as  a  townsite  or  to  sell  as  lands,  as  farms,  or  to  sell  as  additions  to 
a  town  or  a  city.  I  limit  the  amount  of  capital  that  can  be  used  for 
that.  For  instance,  they  could  buy  under  one  section  there;  I  give 
them  authority  to  buy  lands  and  subdivide  them  into  farms;  I  don't 
give  them  authority  to  improve  and  cultivate  them,  but  to  subdivide 
them  into  farms,  and  to  buy  lands  adjoining,  adjacent  to  towns  or 
cities,  for  the  purpose  of  providing  homes  for  these  soldiers. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  contains  no  authority  to  clear  lands? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Or  to  level  or  drain  lands  ? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Or  to  irrigate  lands? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  individual  would  have  to  do  that  himself  ? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  There  is  another  provision  in  there  which  I  have 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  bill  in  regard  to  public  lands,  which  gives 
your  committee  jurisdiction  over  it.  I  provide  that  every  soldier, 
honorably  discharged,  may  make  an  entry  on  public  lands  without 
the  payment  of  fees  and  commissions.  That  is  not  very  much,  of 
course. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Your  bill  also  contemplates  assistance  to  those 
living  in  cities  for  the  purpose  of  securing  homes  in  the  cities? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Does  it  also  contemplate  assistance  to  set  them 
up  in  business? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  No,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  does  not  contemplate  that?  Your  bill  em- 
braces,' then,  practically  all  the  soldiers,  and  you  are  going  to  sell 
bonds  for  that  purpose? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  those  bonds  are  secured  by  a  mortgage  on 
the  property,  a  mortgage  for  its  full  value  ? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  not  in  accordance  with  the  plan  of  the  farm 
loan,  up  to  50  per  cent? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  No,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Or  other  per  cent? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Unless  you  make  that  distinction,  I  think  it  is  impos- 
sible to  give  the  soldier  an}7  material  advantage  over  other  citizens. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then  the  Government  is  to  guarantee  these 
bonds  ? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  the  only  way  you  can  sell  them  in 
large  quantities  or  get  them  at  a  low  rate  of  interest,  and  a  low  rate 
of  interest,  of  course,  is  needed. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  large  a  bond  issue  do  you  figure  will  be  out 
at  any  one  time  ? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Well,  I  think  2,000,000  soldiers,  in  the  course  of  the 
next  few  years,  would  take  advantage  of  this  bill. 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  287 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Two  million? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Yes;  that  is  just  a  rough  estimate,  you  know.  Then, 
if  you  give  them  a  $4,000  loan  a  piece— you  can't  tell  what  that  will 
be;  a  great  many  loans  might  be  only  $1,000— $4,000  is  the  limit  I 
fixed,  but  I  contemplate  there  will  be  in  time  four,  or  five,  or  six,  or 
seven,  or  eight  billion  dollars  of  these  bonds. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  would  be  4,000  times  2,000,000. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  That  would  be  $8,000,000,000. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Four  thousand  times  2,000,000  would  provide  for 
2,000,000  soldiers— that  is,  provided  they  all  took  a  $4,000  loan— but 
there  are  many  of  these  soldiers  who  would  have  $1,000  or  $2,000. 
Many  of  them  would  not  want  to  borrow  the  full  $4,000. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  was  your  answer  as  to  how  much  bond  issue 
would  be  out  at  one  time  if  2,000,000  soldiers  took  it? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Two  million  soldiers,  if  they  had  $4,000  a  piece,  that 
would  be  $8,000,000,000  in  bonds. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  it  is  your  idea,  then,  to  supply  the  money 
so  that  the  soldier  may  purchase  -a  farm  wherever  he  sees  fit  ? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Not  out  of  cash  out  of  the  Treasury. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  by  the  issuance  of  bonds? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  By  issuing  bonds. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  don't  restrict  him  to  any  Government 
projects? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  I  don't  restrict  him  to  any  Government  projects.  I 
provide  that  on  public  lands — that  where  a  soldier  makes  an  entry 
on  any  public  lands  he  may  secure  a  short-time  loan  not  exceeding 
$1,200,  which  would  be,  I  think,  a  very  great  benefit  to  the  Western 
States  where  the  public  lands  are,  because  many  of  these  soldiers, 
if  they  had  $1,200  to  put  into  stock  and  equipment,  could  go  out  on 
farms  there  and  make  a  living,  but  would  not  be  able  to  do  it  unless 
these  loans  are  made  to  them. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  many  existing  farms  do  you  contemplate 
would  be  purchased  under  your  act? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Well,  that  is  all  problematical.  My  idea  is  that 
there  would  be  a  very  large  number.  Of  course,  those  farms  would 
be  all  kinds  of  sizes.  We  have,  say,  6,000.000  farms  now.  How 
many  of  those  would  be  bought  in  the  country  and  how  many  of 
them  would  be  bought  in  the  city  I  don't  know,  but  I  should  think 
about  half  and  half.  That  is  my  idea. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  think  there  Avould  be  about  a  million  new 
farms,  then  ? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  My  idea  is  that  in  every  State  there  are  vast  millions 
of  acres  that  are  not  productive  now,  that  are  not  cultivated,  and 
much  of  it  is  waste  land  and  yet  capable  of  cultivation,  in  every 
State,  in  this  Union,  so  that  really,  as  a  reclamation  act,  I  believe, 
gentlemen  of  this  committee,  that  as  a  reclamation  act  this  bill  of 
mine  will  bring  into  cultivation  more  new  land,  it  will  redeem  more 
waste  and  unproductive  land  than  the  plan  presented  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Interior. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  what  do  you  say  as  to  the  severe  competi- 
tion that  your  plan  will  bring  on  with  the  present  farmers? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  I  don't  think  that  applies  simply  to  the  ri'.-h.  You 
take  these  boys  that  are  farmer  boys,  if  they  don't  own  a  farm,  they 
will  lease  a  farm. 

133319—19 19 


288  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  was  one  objection  urged  to  the  Mondell 
bill. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  I  don't  sympathize  very  much  with  thfct  idea — that 
is,  I  don't  think  that  is  the  main  thing.  But  here,  one-third  of  our 
farmers  are  tenants,  or  more.  Now,  this  will  transform,  in  a  large 
degree,  these  men  who  are  tenants  into  owners.  It  will  not  increase 
the  production  so  much  altogether;  it  will  not  make  competition 
very  much,  but  it  will  transform  them  from  farm  hands,  working 
by  the  month,  and  from  tenants,  into  proprietors  of  farms.  That 
is  what  it  will  do. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  benefits  of  your  bill  are  confined  to  soldiers, 
are  they  not? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Absolutely,  and  their  widows  and  minor  orphan 
children. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  know  how  many  soldiers  are  tenants  on 
farms  ? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  No,  sir;  I  don't  know.  I  suppose  they  will  average 
just  about  the  same.  Say  that  we.  have  33^  per  cent  of  our  families 
on  our  farms  who  are  tenants,  then  I  presume  33^  per  cent  of  our 
boys  are  the  sons  of  tenants,  and  a  certain  per  cent  of  them  are  the 
sons  of  farmers  who  have  farms  of  their  own,  but  who  haven't  a 
farm  large  enough  to  divide  up  with  all  the  boys.  There  are  more 
young  men  who  are  tenants  than  there  are  old  men,  you  understand. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Your  bill  is  so  comprehensive  and  embraces  so 
many,  what  do  you  think  as  to  whether  or  not  its  provisions  will 
increase  the  present  scarcity  of  farm  labor? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  I  think  in  that  respect  it  will  have  little  effect,  be- 
cause these  farm  boys — they  are  farmers  anyway ;  they  are  working 
on  the  farm,  and  it  won't  increase  the  farm  labor,  nor  will  it  de- 
crease it,  because  I  don't  think  there  are  many  boys  living  in  v  the 
city  that  are  going  to  the  farm. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  any  provision  in  your  bill  against  the 
selling  or  the  alienation  of  the  land  ? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Yes,  sir;  I  provide  absolutely  against  that,  although 
I  think  I  might  modify  that  a  little.  I  provide  that  this  contract, 
this  purchase  of  the  farm  home,  or  the  loan  on  personal  property, 
can  not  be  sold,  assigned,  transferred,  or  conveyed.  Now,  I  heard 
that  question  discussed  yesterday.  I  thought  ft  might  be  well  to 
provide  that  it  might  be  sold  to  anybody  who  was  a  beneficiary 
under  the  act,  another  soldier,  but  to  permit  a  soldier  to  sell  his  con- 
tract, to  sell  this  loan,  and  to  sell  this  land,  simply  means  that  you 
are  making  this  for  the  benefit  of  civilians,  and  it  is  unjust  to  the 
soldier,  because  it  is  giving  the  civilian  the  opportunity  to  buy  these 
contracts,  which  would  give  them  the  advantage  of  the  act. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Would  a.  widow  of  a  soldier  killed  in  France  be 
entitled  to  the  benefit  of  this  act? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Yes,  sir;  I  provided  that  the  widow  of  the  soldier 
and  their  minor  children. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  in  addition  to  any  insurance  received 
under  the  present  law? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  any  other  members  of  the  committee  desire 
to  ask  any  questions? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  289 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Mr.  Morgan,  of  course  we  all  understand 
that  people  in  the  rural  sections  are  flocking  to  the  cities,  and  it  is 
hoped  we  may  secure  legislation  which  will  attract  the  city  people 
to  the  farm,  or  at  least  keep  the  farmer  boys  on  the  farm.  Under 
the  provisions  of  your  bill,  it  seems  to  me,  if  it  were  enacted,  per- 
mitting soldiers  to  buy  homes  in  cities,  that  it  would  have  a  tendency 
to  attract  farmer  boys  to  the  cities. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Then,  the  farmers  will  make  more  money.  They  will 
have  less  competition.  I  always  liked  to  see  the  farmer  boys 

fto  the  town  and  the  city.    I  think  the  towns  and  cities  need  them, 
never  did  sympathize  very  much  with  the  idea  that  you  must 
keep  a  farmer  boy  out  on  the  farm ;  that  he  must  always  stay  there. 
I  have  been  on  a  farm — was  raised  on  a  farm. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  You  were  raised  on  a  farm,  but  you  went 
to  the  city  as  soon  as  you  got  an  opportunity  ? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  I  got  to  the  city  before  I  was  25  years  old. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  the  farmers  really  support  the  city. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Certainly.  There  are  many  compensations  on  the 
farm.  I  think  it  is  a  fine  occupation.  I  wTould  like  to  see  it  a  little 
easier  for  the  farmer,  and  so  on,  but  it  is  a  noble  occupation,  worthy 
of  the  ablest  man. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Why  do  you  limit,  Mr.  Morgan,  under  the 
provisions  of  your  bill,  loaning  people  $4,000  to  buy  a  home  or  a 
farm — why  do  you  limit  it  to  2,000,000  ?  Don't  you  think  there  would 
probably  be  about  3,000,000  or  3,500,000  soldiers  that  would"  take 
advantage  of  it? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  There  is  no  limit  in  the  bill.  That  is  sort  of  a  wild 
guess.  I  don't  know  how  many  of  them  there  would  be. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  In  providing  in  your  bill  that  he  may  get  a  loan 
up  to  the  full  value  of  the  property,  would  you  make  any  pro- 
vision— or  does  it  make  any  provision — for  the  fluctuations  in  value? 
For  instance,  to-day  we  generally  believe  that  prices  are  higher  than 
they  Avill  be  in  two  or  three  or  four  or  five  years  from  now. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Well,  now,  fluctuations — that  is  one  advantage  of 
this  long-time  loan  system.  In  a  long-time  loan  the  fluctuation  of 
the  value  of  the  farm  cuts  no  figure.  He  has  20  or  30  or  40  or  50 
years  to  pay  for  the  farm,  and  the  fact  that  the  selling  price  of  the 
farm  is  less  this  year  or  more  this  year  than  it  would  be  the  next 
year  or  the  next  cuts  no  figure,  because  in  due  time  we  know  this, 
gentlemen  of  the  committee,  that  from  the  very  nature  of  things  the 
farm  lands,  as  well  as  the  city  lands,  will  continue  to  grow  in  value. 
Our  cities  will  grow,  our  commerce  will  grow,  and  our  population 
will  grow ;  and  those  things  that  are  inevitable  will  make  every 
one  of  these  farms — you  loan  to  its  full  value  to-day,  and  next  year 
is  worth  more  than  you  made  the  loan  for. 

Mr.  BKXIIAM.  Is 'that  conclusion  warranted  by  the  experience  of 
the  past,  that  there  is  a  constant  and  steady  upward  tendency  of 
farm  land?  Is  that  justified  by  the  experience  of  the  past  60  years 
or  since  the  Civil  War  days? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  I  think  so. 

Mr.  BEX  HAM.  And  yet  everywhere  we  find  farms  that  are  nearly 
abandoned,  comparatively  small  in  value  to  what  they  were  years 
and  years  ago. 


290  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  That  has  been  on  account  of  bad  farming,  as  a  rule, 
absolutely  bad  farming. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  think  there  will  be  no  trouble  in  selling  a 
bond  issue  secured  by  the  full  value  of  the  property  ? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Not  if  it  is  guaranteed  by  the  Government,  because 
then  it  is  just  as  good  as  a  Government  bond,  and  the  mere  fact  that 
it  is  for  the  benefit  of  the  soldiers  and  their  homes  would  make  it  at- 
tractive to  many  people. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Mr.  Morgan,  you  stated  that  the  Mondell  bill  was 
2^  per  cent  a  soldier's  bill  and  97^  per  cent  something  else.  I  want 
to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  it  is  a  100  per  cent  soldiers'  bill, 
although  it  is  true  that  all  soldiers  could  not  be  taken  care  of  under 
the  present  bill.  Isn't  that  what  you  mean  ? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  I  don't  wish  to  be  severe  in  my  criticism  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  You  wrere  basing  your  percentage  there  on  the  num- 
ber that  would  be  taken  care  of. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  I  don't  believe  that  5  per  cent — I  said  2£  per  cent 
soldiers — but  I  don't  believe  that  5  per  cent  of  our  soldier  boys  ever 
could  take  advantage  of  that  or  ever  would.  That  is  my  honest 
conviction. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Well,  it  isn't  anything  else.  There  is  nobody  else 
can  take  advantage  of  it  under  the  present  provisions. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  It  is  a  reclamation  project.  Now,  this  Government 
might  well,  regardless  of  the  soldier,  this  Government  might  well 
undertake  to  redeem  our  swamp  lands,  and  I  would  vote  for  any 
reasonable  reclamation  project,  independent  of  the  soldier,  for  the 
benefit  of  the  National  Government  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  civilians 
generally.  I  would  vote  for  any  reasonable  project  for  the  reclama- 
tion of  these  waste  lands. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Would  you  do  that  at  this  time,  Mr.  Morgan  ? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Well,  I  would,  just  in  a  limited  way;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Just  one  other  question — has  it  been  your  idea  that 
these  bonds  should  be  taxable? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  No,  sir;  the  bonds  are  made  exempt  from  taxation, 
because  that  is  the  only  way  you  can  get  a  low  rate  of  interest. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Morgan,  you  provide  that  a  man  can  not  alienate 
his  land  for  how  long? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  I  don't  allow  him  to  alienate  it  at  all. 

Mr.  RAKER.  How  is  that? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Under  the  terms  of  my  bill,  he  is  not  allowed  to 
alienate  it  at  all,  except  by  payment  of  the  purchase  price  in  full. 
Now,  for  instance,  a  soldier  can  transfer  his  land,  of  course,  and  if 
he  pays  the  Government  the  purchase  price,  of  course  he  can  transfer 
his  land,  but  I  mean  I  don't  believe  it  is  right  to  let  a  civilian  buy 
this  contract  and  get  the  benefits  of  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then,  so  long  as  there  was  anything  due,  although  he 
had  a  deed  for  his  property,  or  a  patent,  if  there  was  any  lien  of  any 
kind  against  it,  you  still  think  it  advisable  not  to  allow  him  to 
alienate  it? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Well,  that  was  my  proposition. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  right  in  that  line,  let  me  ask  you  where  is  this 
theory  coming  from  and  what  has  possessed  a  few  of  our  good  citi- 
zens to  reverse  the  policy  of  this  country  for  140  years  and  say  that 


HOMES  FOE   SOLDIERS.  291 

we  should  go  back  to  the  Russian  system,  if  I  may  use  that  expression, 
in  regard  to  land  tenures?     What  is  the  matter? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  You  mean  that  the  fact  that  I  restrict  the  alienation 
is  going  back  to  the  Russian  system  ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  is  similar  ;r yes.  In  other  words,  other  speakers 
have  said  that  they  want  the  Government  to  own  all  the  land  and 
become  the  proprietors — buy  up  the  proprietors  of  the  old  land  now 
and  allow  men  to  come  in,  and  under  your  bill,  as  many  others  have 
suggested,  they  would  become  tenants  of  the  National  Government. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Or  subtenants  of  some  private  individual. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  No;  I  don't  think  so.  They  are  the  owners  of  the 
land — the  proprietors.  They  have  a  deed  for  it.  They  can't  be 
put  off. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Still,  you  say  he  can  not  sell  it. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Oh,  no;  I  say  he  can  sell  it,  but  he  must  pay  the 
Government  the  full  price  when  he  sells  it — or  there  ought  to  be  some 
restriction.  Now,  offhand,  I  absolutely  restricted  alienation,  but  on 
further  reflection  I  have  concluded  that  he  might  be  allowed  to  sell 
to  any  soldier,  because  the  benefits  of  the  act  would  still  go  to  sol- 
diers ;  or  you  might,  instead  of  requiring  him  to  pay  the  full  value  of 
the  land,  you  might  say  he  might  sell  after  he  had  paid  25  per  cent 
on  the  principal,  or  50  per  cent,  or  something  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well,  I  was  simply  getting  at  what  you  provided  for 
in  the  bill.  It  seems  to  me  that  while  the  country  has  progressed  and 
become  wonderful  as  it  has,  by  virtue  of  men  being  permitted  to  deal 
themselves,  individually,  in  their  farms  and  otherwise  and  borrow 
money  and  use  idle  capital,  to  now  come  in  on  a  soldier  and  say: 
"  We  "are  going  to  provide  you  a  farm,  but  we  are  going  to  make  you 
tenants  and  subtenants  to  some  organization  or  board  or  something, 
and  we  are  not  going  to  give  you  the  free  will  to  exercise  your  own 
judgment  as  to  when  and  how  you  shall  dispose  of  your  property  "- 
isn't  that  about  the  effect  of  it? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Well,  I  don't  think  so.  Mr.  Raker.  Just  for  the 
benefit  of  the  committee  I  would  like  to  just  read  a  paragraph  from 
two  letters  that  I  received.  A  newspaper  correspondent  sent  a  story 
about  my  bill  to  a  Texas  paper 

The  CHAIRMAN  (interposing).  Is  this  in  answer  to  Judge  Raker's 
question  ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  am  not  criticizing  anybody's  bill;  I  am  just  driving 
at  the  specific  theory,  the  idea  that  other  gentlemen  have  presented 
here  besides  yourself,  as  to  this  inhibition  of  alienation,  and  I  am  try- 
ing to  find  out  what  has  come  over  our  country,  if  it  is  general  that 
we  should  go  back  to  a  foreign  system  of  the  old  countries  to  make 
our  people  tenants  of  the  Government  and  the  Government  a  land- 
lord, and  they  be  unable  to  exercise  their  free  will  in  the  disposition 
of  their  property.  In  other  words,  are  we  turning  back  2,000  years 
or  are  we  trying  to  progress? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Well,  my  theory  of  it  is  that  this  is  a  contract,  so 
to  speak:  that  we  are  advancing  through  an  appropriation  of  the 
National  Government,  through  large  expenditures  from  year  to  year 
in  supervising  and  controlling  this  business,  and  we  are  doing  that 
for  the  benefit  of  the  soldier.  Now,  if  the  soldier  is  allowed  absolute 


292  HOMES  FOR   SOLDI  KKS. 

freedom  to  transfer  this  contract  as  quick  as  he  enters  into  it,  that 
contract  is  supposed  to  be  positively  worth — 

Mr.  RAKER  (interposing).  I  never  said  that.     Now,  listen 

Mr.  MORGAN  (interposing).  Let  me  give  you  my  reasons — 

Mr.  RAKER  (interposing).  I  don't  w^ant  that  on  me.  I  have  never 
said,  never  intimated,  never  asked  a  question  upon  the  question  of 
the  transferring  of  the  contract.  I  am  going  to  the  question  of 
transfer  after  the  patent  has  been  issued.  I  am  assuming  now  that 
the  man  owns  the  land ;  that  he  has  got  a  patent  for  it. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Well,  I  don't  remember — 

Mr.  RAKER  (interposing).  None  of  my  questions  have  related  to 
any  other  time.  Now,  why  should  there  be  any  restriction  after  he 
becomes  the  sole. owner  of  the  land? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  As  I  say,  he  has  the  legal  title  to  the  land,  but  he 
has  secured  that  through  a  Government  loan  proposition,  which  is  a 
valuable  proposition  for  the  benefit  of  the  soldier,  not  merely  in 
money.  Now.  Mr.  Raker,  if  it  is  a  question  of  money  you  are  going 
to  give  the  soldier,  then  you  ought  to  make  a  direct  appropriation, 
give  him  $500  or  $1,000  or  $2,000,  every  one  of  them,  and  turn  them 
out.  But  if  you  are  coupling  with  that  the  idea  of  getting  him  a 
home  for  the  benefit  of  himself  and  family,  as  well  as  for  the  benefit 
of  the  country — 

Mr.  RAKER  (interposing).  But  what  business  is  it  of  the  Govern- 
ment's or  anybody  else  to  put  a  restriction  upon  the  soldier  different 
from  anybody  else,  to  say,  "After  you  have  gotten  a  patent,  I  am 
not  going  to  permit  you  to  sell  your  land,  provided  the  Government 
gets  its  money  "  ? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  My  objection  to  it,  just  as  I  said,  is  that  if  you  do 
that,  if  you  allow  him  as  quick  as  he  enters  into  his  contract — 

Mr.  RAKER  (interposing).  I  didn't  say  "  contract."  I  am  not  talk- 
ing about  contract. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Now,  I  will  say  this:  Under  my  plan  he  is  supposed 
to  have  a  deed  to  his  property  before  the  Government  makes  the 
loan.  Now,  he  is  technically  the  legal  owner  of  the  property  and  has 
got  a  patent  to  it.  Under  the  Lane  plan,  as  I  understand  it,  he 
don't  get  a  patent  until  he  has  complied  with  the  law,  but  I  am  not 
certain  about  that. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  hope  I  make  myself  plain  to  you,  Mr.  Morgan,  on 
this.  I  am  assuming  that  the  prior  conditions  have  been  provided 
and  complied  with,  and  we  have  arrived  at  the  point  that  the  man 
has  got  a  patent  to  his  land,  although  there  are  liens  upon  it.  Why 
restrict  the  soldier  under  any  legislation  to  alienate  his  land,  pro- 
vided the  Government  gets  all  that  is  due  it? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Well,  as  I  say,  it  simply  gives  the  civilian  the  bene- 
fits of  this  act. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  are  we  going  to  enact  legislation  here  that  after 
you  give  the  soldier  the  benefit  of  a  home  and  he  receives  the  price 
for  its  sale,  are  you  going  to  then  say  that  the  other  American  citizen 
can  not  buy  of  that  soldier  and  become  land  owners  with  the  soldier, 
if  he  wants  to  sell  and  go  to  some  other  place  ? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  I  believe,  under  certain  limitations,  he  ought  to  be 
allowed  to  sell,  but  I  don't  believe — it  is  just  like  the  homestead. 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  293 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then  why  do  you  put  a  limitation  on  the  soldier  after 
he  becomes  a  patentee  owner  of  the  land?  Why  do  you  want  to 
put  a  string  on  him  ?  Why  do  you  want  to  say  that  he  is  not  capable 
of  exercising  his  judgment  as  every  other  American  citizen? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  I  think  he  is. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  am  trying  to  get  your  theory,  Mr.  Morgan. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  I  have  tried  to  give  it  to  you,  Mr.  Raker. 

Mr.  BAER.  I  don't  think  it  would  be  constitutional. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  don't  care  about  constitutions  on  this;  I  am  trying 
to  get  the  theory  of  the  gentlemen  now  appearing  before  this  com- 
mittee, to  place  upon  the  American  soldiers — to  say  nothing  about 
the  other  American  citizens — to  say  that  we  should  reverse  our  policy 
and  make  them  tenants  of  the  Government,  and  that  they  can't  alien- 
ate their  land  after  they  get  a  patent  to  it. 

Mr.  VAILE.  If  you  will  allow  me  a  question  there — isn't  it  a  fact, 
Mr.  Morgan,  that  no  matter  what  provisions  we  make  requiring 
land  to  be  inalienable,  even  before  patent,  those  provisions  will  be 
avoided  by  private  arrangements  between  parties  ?  That  the  intend- 
ing purchaser  will  send  his  money  to  the  proper  party  to  receive  it, 
and  have  him  deposit  it  in  the  bank  in  escrow,  with  a  deed  to  him, 
and  when  the  patent  comes  back  to  the  bank,  the  transaction  will  be 
effected  by  the  delivery  of  that  deed,  and  we  can't,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  make  lands  inalienable,  not  as  a  legal,  but  as  a  practical  prppo- 
sition. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Now,  I  will  tell  you,  in  my  judgment,  the  question 
which  Mr.  Raker  is  so  deeply  interested  in — and  rightly  so — is,  as 
I  recall,  not  a  part  of  the  main  proposition.  I  am  trying  to  present 
the  difference  between  a  loan  plan  and  a  cash  plan  in  its  general 
ideas.  I  might,  on  consideration,  agree  with  you  on  that  point,  but 
just  in  preparing  the  bill,  you  are  in  a  hurry,  and  you  put  a  certain 
provision  in  it,  and  I  might  agree  with  you.  But  that  is  a  subsidiary 
question. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  don't  know  why  it  is — I  don't  intend  to  assume  any 
opinion  in  asking  a  question,  but  you  have  had  lots  of  experience 
and,  of  course,  have  gone  into  this  subject,  and  that  being  the  fact 
I  just  wondered  where  you  are  getting  this  idea  from. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  It  was  for  the  benefit  of  the  soldier  that  I  was  con- 
trolled. I  felt  that  if  you  give  him  the  right  to  transfer  then  you 
wore  helping  the  civilian  as  well  as  the  soldier  in  the  same  degree. 
So  that  I  considered  that  it  would  be  a  detriment  to  the  soldier. 
It  was  on  his  side  that  I  felt  we  ought  not  to  allow  alienation  ex- 
cept under  certain  restrictions. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well,  I  hope  the  day  will  never  come  when  we  make 
legislation — I  will  withdraw  that. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  had  just  one  hour  with 
Mr.  Morgan  and  I  think  we  have  done  more  for  him  than  we  have 
for  any  other  speaker  here.  The  soldiers  are  waiting  for  us  to  do 
something. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  has, been  lengthened  out.  Couldn't  you  con- 
clude now.  Judge  ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  am  through. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  There  are  other  members  here  and  I  think  they 
ought  to  be  heard. 


294  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Xow,  Mr.  Boies  is  here.  I  promised  him  that 
we  would  put  him  on  this  morning. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  a  couple  of  letters  here  from 
two  men,  I  believe  both  soldiers  who  have  heard  something  about 
the  matter  of  the  Mondell  bill  and  I  would  like  to  put  them  in  in 
my  statement. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  any  objection  to  including  the  letters? 
Without  objection,  that  will  be  done. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  I  certainly  want  to  thank  the  committee  for  the  time 
that  they  have  given  me. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Boies,  will  you  state  your  name  and  whom 
you  represent? 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  W.  D.  BOIES,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CON- 
GRESS  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  IOWA. 

Mr.  BOIES.  My  name  is  W.  D.  Boies  and  I  live  at  Sheldon,  Iowa. 
I  represent  the  llth  Congressional  District  of  that  State. 

I  have  been  delegated  by  the  Iowa  delegation  to  appear  before 
this  committee  on  the  invitation  of  the  committee  to  give  our  reasons 
why  we  are  opposed  to  the  bill  that  has  been  introduced  in  Congress, 
called  the  Mondell  bill,  but  which  is  in  fact  a  bill  from  the  Interior 
Department  of  this  Government. 

Now,  we  are  against  the  proposition,  and  I  can  not  conclude  in 
15  minutes.  I  think  I  should  have  sufficient  time  to  conclude  my 
address.  I  don't  expect  every  gentleman  upon  this  committee 
to  agree  with  me  by  any  means  but  I  understand  that  this  com- 
mittee is  organized  *  for  'the  purpose  of  hearing  the  views  of  the 
several  gentlemen  who  appear  before  it.  and  that  the  record  of  the 
case  is  taken  down  and  printed  for  the  benefit  of  the  Members  of 
Congress,  and  I  have  felt  that  this  bill,  backed  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior,  is  a  huge  reclamation  scheme  and  is  primarily  backed 
by  men  who  either  have  land  to  dispose  of,  swamp,  stump,  and  arid, 
or  who  live  in  the  vicinity  of  that  land. 

There  are  a  great  many  quotations  here  and  I  will  have  to  be 
confined  primarily  to  my  manuscript. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  the  several  dele- 
gations in  Congress  having  been  invited  by  your  chairman,  Mr.  Sin- 
nott.  to  address  the  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands,  "  now  holding 
hearings  on  soldier  land  settlement  legislation,"  the  Iowa  delegation 
very  generously  cast  upon  me  the  burden  of  presenting  to  the  com- 
mittee on  views  of  the  delegation  concerning  the  matter  and  of  the 
related  legislation  proposed  by  the  Mondell  bill  now  pending  before 
Congress. 

Everything  in  the  interest  of  the  American  soldier  in  the  World 
War,  which  has  not  yet  been  brought  to  a  conclusion,  is  more  than 
popular  with  the  American  people,  as  in  justice  it  should  be.  I  can 
assure  you  that  the  Iowa  delegation  shares  this  feeling  to  the  full. 
Personally,  I  wish  to  have  the  record  show  that  the  facts  are  such 
that  I  would  go  a  long  way  and  excuse  many  things  in  an  endeavor 
to  assist  every  soldier  inducted  into  the  service  of  this  country. 
My  own  son  enlisted  in  August,  1917,  left  his  young  wife,  his  boy 
baby,  and  his  farm  operations  behind  and  served  his  country  for  a 


HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS.  295 

year  and  a  half;  my  brother's  only  son  sleeps  to-day  in  a  soldier's 
grave  in  France;  two  nephews  served  in  France,  one  of  them  just 
returned,  and  the  other  still  there.  My  Official  Court  reporter's  son, 
a  boy  whom  I  loved,  was  shot  to  pieces  on  the  battle  field,  and  the 
homes  of  scores  of  friends  made  desolate  by  death  on  account  of  this 
terribly  barbaric  and  inexcusable  war.  I  make  this  statement,  which 
might 'be  immeasurably  enlarged  upon,  in  order  that  there  may  be 
no  excuse  for  any  small  mind,  now  or  in  the  future,  conceiving  the 
idea  that  I  possess  a  single  thought  or  feeling  that  does  not  respond 
to  anything  and  everything  that  can  or  may  be  in  the  interest  and 
the  welfare  of  the  soldier  boy,  and  in  all  particulars,  so  far  as 
I  possess  the  judgment  to  see — and  I  am  not  referring  to  this  im- 
mediate vicinity  wrhen  I  say  that 

Mr.  VAILE  (interposing).  Present  company  excepted? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Yes,  sir ;  not  conceding  the  idea  that  I  possess  a  single 
thought  or  feeling  that  does  not  respond  to  anything  and  everything 
that  can  be  or  may  be  in  the  interest  of  the  welfare  of  the  soldier 
boy  in  all  particulars,  so  far  as  I  possess  the  judgment  to  see. 

The  Iowa  delegation  in  Congress  is  opposed  to  this  bill  because 
the  Members  thereof  believe: 

1.  That,  except  in  a  very  small  proportion,  the  soldier  does  not 
approve  it. 

2.  That  it  is  impracticable. 

3.  That  no  considerable  number  of  the  whole  have  funds  suffi- 
cient to  finance  that  part  of  the  project  required  to  make  the  scheme 
anything  but  a  failure  in  most  instances. 

•i.  That  the  soldier  who  is  possessed  of  funds  sufficient  to  supply 
the  apparent  deficiency  remaining  when  the  aid  proposed  by  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  shall  have  been  exhausted,  will  be  able  to 
establish  himself  upon  a  farm  without  digging  ditches  in  the 
swamps  of  Florida  or  grubbing  stumps  on  the  cut-over-lands  of  the 
North,  as  is  proposed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  for  the 
soldier  who  is  without  funds,  and  the  sum  that  he  must  so  earn,  in 
order  to  meet  the  Secretary's  plan,  will  require  so  much  time  and 
hard  work  and  unremitting  toil  as  that  the  boy  would  about  as  leave 
be  in  a  trench  in  France  as  in  one  in  the  Everglades  of  Florida  or 
in  the  "  Green  Swamp,"  that  the  Secretary  has  referred  to  in  some 
of  his  addresses. 

5.  That  the  unworkable  scheme,  the  Secretary  has  suggested,  has 
brought  to  the  surface  apparently  every  man,  corporation,  partner- 
ship, and  sockty  in  this  country,  who  are  owners  of  swamp,  stump, 
and  arid  lands,  or  who  are  in  any  wise  interested;  and,  standing 
without  invitation  upon  the  shoulders  of  the  young  soldier,  are 
straining  their  eyes  in  an  effort  to  ascertain  if.  perchance,  there  are 
a  few  unencumbered  dollars  in  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  of 
America. 

The  bill  introduced  in  Congress  does  not  disclose  the  plans,  claims, 
designs,  and  purposes  of  the  Interior  Department  of  this  Govern- 
ment, in  case  its  Secretary  is  given  the  power  and  authority  he  so 
earnestly  seeks.  Hence,  we  must  have  recourse  to  the  lectures  and 
communications  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  upon  this  givat  plan. 

Before  proceeding  further  with  the  use  of  the  name  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Interior  or  appearing  to  criticize  his  plans,  I  wish  to 


296  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

say  that  we  have  full  regard  for  his  great  ability,  his  love  for 
humanity,  and  his  gigh  purpose  in  general.  However,  the  thought 
presses  in  upon  my  mind  some  times  in  reading  the  addresses  and 
communications  of  the  secretary  on  this  subject  during  the  past 
few  months,  and  his  addresses,  his  communications,  and  recommenda- 
tions theretofore  delivered  on  the  subject  of  reclamation  of  private 
and  State  owned  swamp,  arid,  and  stump  lands,  that  the  honorable 
secretary  has  unconsciously,  by  mistake,  picked  up  the  wrong  brush, 
the  old  used  one,  in  painting  the  landscape  picture  for  the  soldier. 
We  agree  with  the  secretary  that,  when  this  Government  is  able, 
when  the  billions  upon  billions  of  its  obligations,  piled  mountain 
high,  flowing  in  and  out  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  from 
millions  of  streams  and  brooklets  and  rivulets,  having  their  sources 
in  as  many  patriotic  hearts,  have  been  brought  under  some  reason- 
able control  by  the  steadfast,  sympathetic,  loyal,  generous,  and  pati- 
ent citizens  of  this  country,  then  the  people  of  the  great  State  of 
Iowa,  and  of  every  other  great  State  of  this  Union — they  are  all 
great  States — will  commission  its  several  delegations  in  Congress 
to  appropriate  money  in  all  reasonable  amounts  in  aid  of  all  sane 
reclamation  projects,  as  speedily  as  may  reasonably  be  accomplished, 
of  lands  in  the  United  States  fit  for  farming  purposes,  should  be  re- 
claimed wherein  the  cost  is  not  discouraging.  To  attempt  such  a 
project  on  so  large  a  scale  at  this  time,  especially  so  extensive  as  is 
being  urged  by  many  men,  privately  interested,  is  at  this  time,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  gentlemen  for  whom  I  am  authorized  to  speak,  not 
permissible. 

So  long  as  we  are  required  to  feed  the  world;  to  finance  the  up- 
building of  Europe,  Asia,  Africa,  and  the  isles  of  the  sea ;  and  while 
engaged  in  an  effort  to  redeem  the  world  by  a  cancellation  of  the 
shortcomings  of  men  with  a  glance,  a  happy  smile,  or  grave,  though 
time-worn,  declaration,  the  men  and  the  women  of  this  country  ex- 
pect their  agents  to  handle  their  affairs  pertaining  to  their  Govern- 
ment in  keeping  with  the  times,  having  regard  to  the  present  condi- 
tions. And  in  our  attempt  to  execute  this  agency  we  should  remem- 
ber that  we  are  not  "the  people";  also,  that  the  law  of  the  land, 
founded  on  simple  justice,  requires  of  the  agent  good  judgment  and 
the  highest  grade  of  fidelity.  If  the  Iowa  delegation  ever  votes  to 
put  the  finances  of  this  Government  in  a  more  serious  condition  than 
we  know  them  to  be  in  to-day,  it  will  be  when  some  one  can  show  us 
that  both  the  welfare  and  the  desire  of  the  soldier  is  knocking  at  the 
door  of  Congress,  and  the  voice  of  the  soldier  is  heard  speaking  with 
his  own  tongue,  and  making  clear  by  his  own  expression  what  he 
desires  and  what  he  thinks  is  to  his  interest.  The  American  soldier 
is  not  a  mollycoddle;  he  is  the  ward  of  no  individual  or  class  of  men. 
Let  us  have 'light  from  some  considerable  portion  of  the  boys  who 
stood  ready  to  give  their  lives,  if  need  be,  that  others  might  live  in 
decent  surroundings. 

It  might  have  been  wise,  so  far  as  I  am  personally  concerned  and 
my  attitude  better  understood,  had  I  earlier  in  this  address  called 
attention  to  what  occurred  in  my  home  town  some  four  weeks  ago, 
and  which  set  me  to  thinking  strongly  in  disfavor  of  this  plan  of  the 
Department  of  the  Interior. 

We  there  banqueted  that  evening  more  than  40  returned  soldiers. 
Some  of  the  soldiers  present  had  seen  service  in  France,  some  active, 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  297 

fighting,  others  who  had  been  in  the  service  a  long  time  in  this 
country — three  or  four  officers,  one  major,  who  was  in  the  Spanish- 
American  War  and  who  had  just  returned  from  France.  These  sol- 
diers, in  my  judgment,  were  as  representative  of  the  usual  bodies 
that  might  assemble  from  the  country  and  country  towns  as  one 
could  readily  find.  At  the  conclusion  of  my  talk  I  called  attention 
to  this  plan  of  "  land  for  soldiers,"  desiring  sincerely  to  secure  theii 
attitude  upon  the  question;  and  without  the  least  information  as  to 
how  they  or  any  of  them  stood  I  asked  those  who  favored  the  plan 
to  stand.  Not  one  stood.  Then  I  requested  that  those  of  them  who 
were  opposed  to  the  plan  stand,  and  every  soldier  in  the  room — 
forty-odd,  including  the  officers — was  on  his  feet  as  quickly  as 
though  they  were  obeying  the  command  of  an  officer.  I  talked  with 
several  of  them  personally  after  the  banquet  was  over,-  and  they 
appeared  to  have  given  more  thought  to  the  question  than  I  had,  and 
all  said  they  wanted  nothing  to  do  with  the  matter;  that  if  the  Gov- 
ernment felt  that  it  owed  them  anything  they  would  be  glad  to  take 
the  cash  and  go  their  several  ways  as  free  American  citizens.  They 
did  not  desire  to  be  tied  for  two  or  three  years  to  an  uncertainty. 
I  have  talked  with  many  soldier  boys  since,  and  I  do  not  recall  a 
single  instance  when  even  one  of  the  boys  signified  a  desire  for  the 
opportunity  to  acquire  a  home  after  the  method  proposed  by  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior. 

It  is  most  difficult  sometimes  to  criticize  another's  position  or 
views  without  appearing  to  impugn  the  motives  of  that  other,  but  I 
desire  to  declare  most  emphatically  that  such  is  not  my  intention, 
aim,  or  thought.  I  believe  that  Mr.  Lane  is  altogether  sincere  in 
what  he  proposes  for  the  soldier,  and  that  the  other  gentlemen,  who 
are  earnestly  working  to  accomplish  the  same  end,  are  likewise  sin- 
cere and  are  moved  in  the  interest  of  the  soldier.  However,  there 
are  men,  many  of  them,  whose  judgment  is  subject  to  challenge  be- 
cause of  interest  one  way  and  another.  Interest  so  frequently  biases 
men's  judgment,  and  the  fact  is  so  well  understood  among  men  that, 
by  common  consent,  no  man  may  be  allowed  to  sit  in  judgment  in 
matters  which  affect  him  personally.  The  judge,  however  exalted 
and  just,  is  prohibited  by  law  from  sitting  in  a  case  in  which  he  is 
financially  interested.  This  is  set  forth  merely  to  show  that  in  deal- 
ing with  men  who  are  personally  interested  in  a  project  are  right- 
fully subject  to  the  criticism  usually  adopted  by  common-sense, 
every-day  men.  We  do  not  call  them  dishonest,  we  do  not  think 
they  are,  we  simply  turn  their  arguments  over,  inside  out,  in  order 
to  get  the  real  force  of  what  they  are  driving  at.  This  is  the  test, 
in  my  judgment,  that  you  should  apply  in  your  consideration  of  the 
arguments  appearing  before  you. 

So,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  if  you  will 
acquaint  yourselves  with  the  activities  of  the  men  who  own  swamp 
lands,  stump  lands,  or  arid  lands,  or  who  live  in  the  vicinities  of 
such  lands,  also  the  men  whose  constituents  are  thus  interested, 
men  who  are  members  of  the  corporations,  companies,  and  societies, 
and  as  such,  likewise  personally  interested,  you  will  be  better  able 
to  weigh  their  arguments  than  you  would  be  if  you  made  this  mis- 
take that  they  were  so  earnestly  behind  the  Secretary's  plan,  and 
without  any  other  interest  whatsoever.  It  will  be  wise,  in  my 


298  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

opinion,  to  watch  for  "  riders  "  sought  to  be  attached  to  the  plans 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  Gentlemen,  if  you  do  not  now 
understand  that  there  is  a  supreme  effort  upon  the  part  of  thousands 
of  men  in  this  country,  at  work  day  and  night,  in  an  effort  to  foist 
upon  this  Government  the  most  collossal  reclamation  project  that 
the  world  ever  saw,  you  have  neglected  the  speeches  and  the  litera- 
ture of  eloquent  and  fetching  men.  This  work  is  going  on  in  many 
parts  of  our  land,  and  with  a  personal  interest,  aside  from  and  in 
addition  to  their  interest  in  the  soldier.  And  it  is  expected  and 
talked  that  the  Government  shall  furnish  the  money.  There  is  no 
difference,  except  in  degree,  between  the  South  and  the  North,  or  the 
East  and  the  West. 

Gentlemen.  I  have  not  had  the  time,  I  am  not  possessed  of  the  in- 
formation nor  the  ability  to  present  this  matter  to  you  as  it  should 
be  presented.  The  question  is  altogether  new  to  me,  and  I  have  had 
but  a  few  hours'  time  with  wyhich  to  examine  the  matters  as  outlined 
by  Mr.  Lane,  the  honorable  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  I  am  only  ac- 
quainted in  a  general  way  with  the  extent  of  the  Government's  irriga- 
tion projects,  nor  with  its  success  in  reclaiming  the  public  or  pri- 
vate lands,  yet  I  have  tried  to  study  during  the  few  hours  at  my  dis- 
posal, the  proposition  proposed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
and  to  get  a  line,  as  best  I  could,  concerning  the  object  and  aims  of 
the  men,  corporations,  partnerships,  and  societies  that  appear  to  be 
so  earnestly  backing  the  proposition  outlined  by  the  Secretary. 

A  nicely  compiled  pamphlet  of  155  pages,  entitled  "  Proceedings  of 
the  Southern  Land  Congress,"  held  at  Savannah,  Ga.,  November  11 
and  12,  1918,  very  recently  came  under  my  observation.  Printed  on 
the  cover  the  following  words  appear :  "  Soldier  settlements  in  the 
South,"  and  this  slogan  appears  at  the  top  of  each  page.  I  recom- 
mend this  pamphlet  to  your  earnest  consideration,  and  while  I  would 
not  detract  from  a  single  word  therein  said  in  favor  of  the  soldier,. 
I  invite  the  scrutiny  of  this  committee  in  order  that  you  may  de- 
termine in  your  own  minds  whether  or  not  this  Southern  Land  Con- 
gress, so  called,  was  held  specifically  in  the  interest  of  the  soldier  and 
in  his  interest  alone,  or  even  strictly  in  keeping  with  the  plans  and 
purposes  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior. 

It  is  said  on  the  first  page  of  this  book : 

Held  under  the  auspices  of  the  Southern  Settlement  and  Development  Organi- 
zation, Southern  Pine  Association,  Georgia  Land  Owners'  Association,  Florida 
Tick  Eradication  Committee,  North  Carolina  Land  Owners'  Association,  and 
Savannah  Hoard  of  Trade,  in  cooperation  with  the  rnited  States  Depart- 
ment of  the  Interior. 

On  the  next  page,  under  the  heading  "  Executive  committee,"  we 
find  the  following,  omitting  the  names  of  the  officers : 

Vice  president  Southern  Settlement  and  Development  (  irgaiii/at  ion.  Baltimore, 
Md.,  chairman. 

Vice  president  Georgia  Land  Owners'  Association,  Savannah,  Ga.,  vice  chair- 
man. 

Secretary-manager  Southern  Pine  Association,  New  Orleans,  La. 

Chairman  Florida  Tick  Eradication  Committee,  West  Palm  Beach,  Fla. 

President  North  Carolina  Land  Owners'  Association,  Bolton,  N.  C. 

1 'resident  Savannah  Board  of  Trade,  Savannah,  Ga. 

On  the  next  page,  under  the  heading  of  "  Looking  ahead,"  the  fol- 
lowing occurs: 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  299 

It  is  also  desired  that  the  volume  serve  as  the  record  of  the  first  definite  out- 
line of  a  work  which  is  expected  to  become  the  greatest  constructive  farm- 
ownership  movement  ever  undertaken  by  the  United  States  Government. 

Under  the  "  Foreword  "  it  is  stated : 

The  Southern  Land  Congress  is  in  reality  a  congress  representing  the  "Coastal 
Plain  Itegiou  "  of  the  United  States. 

On  page  13,  in  the  address  of  welcome  by  the  mayor  of  Savannah, 
the  following  language  is  used: 

But  I  can  say  in  all  sincerity  that  no  body  of  men  has  ever  met  in  this 
historic  city  with  a  broader  conviction  or  a  greater  plan  for  American  progress; 
none  have  had  more  patriotic  motive ;  no  proposition  has  had  a  saner  business 
basis;  and  none  lias  presented  such  a  well-considered  plan  tor  the  development 
of  our  favored  Southland. 

On  page  15  the  governor  of  Georgia  said : 

Georgians  are  intensely  interested  in  the  purpose  of  your  organization. 
While  desiring  commercial  expansion  and  the  increase  of  our  manufacturing 
industries  and  the  development  of  all  of  the  resources  of  our  State,  we  realize 
that  our  largest  and  greatest  material  advancement  must  come  from  the  de- 
velopment of  those  vast  areas  of  uncultivated  and  poorly  tilled  lands. 

On  page  17,  the  chairman  of  the  Florida  tick-eradication  com- 
mittee said,  in  response  to  the  welcome : 

We  have  come  here  from  many  places  in  the  South  and  we  represent  many 
varied  operations  which  are  all  closely  tied  up  with  the  land  situation,  and  so 
we  have  gathered  here  to-tfay  to  hold  counsel  with  each  other,  to  impart  what 
knowledge  we  may  have,  and  to  learn  that  which  we  ought  to  know,  in  order 
that  we  may  further  the  interests  of  this  great  section  in  any  program  that  ruay 
be  adopted.  ::  '  Federal  and  State  agencies  have  cooperated  with  us  to 

such  an  extent  that  there  is  hardly  a  county  in  the  whole  South  that  has  not  a 
Federal  agricultural  advisor.  *  *  :  The  South  is  very  little  developed.  We 
can  point  to  many  States  that  are  only  5  per  cent  developed.  It  is  very  neces- 
sary that  we  put  our  best  foot  forward  and  hold  communion  with  each  other 
and  extend  our  hands  across  the  various  county  and  State  lines  and  get 
together  and  bring  out  our  country  as  it  should  be  best  brought  out. 

I  am  sure  that  we  all  know  how  to  make  an  effort,  to  work  in  concert,  as  a 
unit.  We  have  all  made  efforts  as  individuals,  and  there  are  a  great  many 
men  in  this  audience  who  represent  Government  and  State  agencies  who,  if  they 
were  to  think,  would  recall  the  great  advance  that  has  been  made  and  could 
recite  the  numerous  instances  where  we  have  thrown  aside  all  these  things  that 
held  us  back  in  the  past. 

On  page  20  it  is  recorded  that  the  governor  of  North  Carolina  gave 
utterance  to  the  following: 

When  the  Germans  started  their  great  offensive  last  March  Lloyd-George 
said:  "The  race  is  between  Hindenburg  and  Wilson."  To-day  the  ends  of  the 
earth  know,  and  knowing  rejoice  that  Woodrow  Wilson  won  that  great  Olympic. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  just  one  member  of  this  com- 
mittee, and  I  do  object  to  the  gentleman  reading  a  manuscript  which 
could  be  read  by  every  member  of  this  committee  and  save  a  great 
deal  of  time  and  a  gread  deal  of  money  for  the  people,  and  we  can  do 
something  for  the  soldiers  quicker  by  adopting  this  method  than  we 
can  by  having  the  gentleman  read  his  paper.  I  observe  from  his 
reading  that  it  is  in  such  shape — from  his  manuscript  I  should  say 
that  it  is  in  such  shape  that  all  of  us  could  read  it  and  the  gentleman 
could  make  an  address  without  taking  up  all  this  time.  I  object. 

Mr.  VAILE.  I  would  like  to  have  an  opportunity  to  interrogate 
Mr.  Boies  before  he  gets  away. 


300  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Yes;  I  want  to  ask  two  or  three  questions  myself, 
but  he  is  reading  a  manuscript  here  and  we  can  all  read  it  when  it  is 
incorporated  in  the  record. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Of  course,  the  gentleman  has  been  invited  before 
the  committee  and  has  been  designated  by  his  State  to  represent  that 
State,  and  I  don't  see  how  we  can  control  whether  he  makes  an  ex- 
temporaneous speech  or  reads  a  prepared  speech. 

Mr.  BOIES.  I  want  to  say  this :  That  I  am  very  proud  to  have  been 
selected  as  a  member  of  the  Judiciary  Committee.  We  have  been 
holding  meetings  for  the  last  three  or  four  days,  and  we  have  sat 

?uietly  there  and  listened  to  one  man  for  as  much  as  three  hours,  and 
would  like  to  proceed  with  this.  There  are  some  things  that  I 
believe  will  be  interesting 

Mr.  JOHNSON  (interposing).  I  am  in  favor  of  Mr.  Boies — of  your 
paper  going  into  the  record,  but  I  thought  you  could  help  us  more 
by  arguing  your  question  and  let  your  address  go  into  the  record. 
I  have  no  objection  to  that. 

Mr.  BOIES.  But  I  believe  that  these  gentlemen  in  the  South  are 
hooked  up  to  the  plan  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior — and  the  men 
from  the  North  and  West,  and  that  is  what  I  want  the  Members  of 
Congress  to  know. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I  notice  all  through  your  address  that  you  reflect 
upon  the  South. 

Mr.  BOIES.  No;  I  don't  mean  any  reflection. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  And  I  take  exception  to  it,  and  I  want  the  record 
to  show  it. 

Mr.  BOIES.  I  am  putting  in  their  own  language.  I  don't  blame 
the  South  for  getting  all  that's  coming  to  them — 

Mr.  JOHNSON  (interposing).  Just  pardon  me  one  suggestion. 
You  will  observe  that  those  men  have  come  from  the  North,  most 
of  them,  and  have  settled  in  the  South.  Some  of  them  are  from 
your  own  beloved  State  of  Iowa. 

Mr.  BOIES.  That  last  sentence  that  I  read  was  put  in  there  as  a 
matter  of  humor.  It  pleased  me. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Judge,  I  don't  want  to  interrupt  you,  but  it  was 
understood  the  other  day  that  Members  of  Congress  should  be  limited 
to  15  minutes,  but  we  have  extended  the  time  of  Mr.  Morgan  to  30 
minutes.  I  don't  want  to  curtail  you.  How  long  would  it  take  you 
to  finish? 

Mr.  BOIES.  He  was  on  his  feet  for  about  an  hour  and  15  minutes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  the  opening  statement. 

Mr.  VAILE.  He  was  being  interrogated  about  half  an  hour. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  long  would  it  take  you  to  complete  your 
statement  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  I  am  about  half  through. 

Mr.  WHITE.  He  is  presenting  this  paper,  Mr.  Chairman,  very 
consecutively,  much  more  clearly  than  it  could  otherwise  be  done. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  is  no  idea  of  curtailing  his  time,  but  we 
would  like  to  have  some  idea  how  long  it  will  be,  so  we  can  determine 
how  long  we  shall  sit. 

Mr.  BOIES.  It  is  my  judgment — and  I  am  entitled  to  my  own  judg- 
ment— I  don't  expect  it  is  going  to  fit  the  judgment  of  every  man 
upon  this  committee,  and  I  don't  know  that  it  will  fit  the  judgment 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  301 

of  any  gentleman  upon  this  committee,  but  I  think  that  Congress 
should  know,  and  I  think  that  I  ought  to  have  a  chance  to  state  orally 
to  this  committee,  the  history  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  has 
made,  aided  by  men  who  have  axes  to  grind,  if  you  please,  with 
reference  to  the  worthless  land  in  the  present  situation  in  this  country. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Do  you  believe  that  the  Secretary  has  an  ax  to  grind? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Xo  ax  to  grind  financially;  no  ax  to  grind,  except  that 
he  is  in  love  with  his  own  proposition  and  wants  to  see  it  carried 
through,  and  he  wants  help  from  whatever  source  he  can  get  it. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Inasmuch  as  the  committee  seems  disposed  to  allow 
you  to  go  on  over  my  objection — which  is  right,  for  the  majority  to 
control — I  ask  you  this :  Are  you  in  favor  of  doing  anything  for  the 
soldier? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Xot  under  this  plan  at  all. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Just  one  other  question.     What  is  your  plan? 

Mr.  BOIES.  My  plan  is  that  if  anything  is  done  for  the  soldier 
to-day,  we  ought  to  do  what  he  desires,  and  that  is  for  this  Govern- 
ment to  hand  him  as  much  money  as  the  Government  thinks  it  can 
afford  to  in  view  of  his  services,  and  let  him  go  as  an  independent, 
free,  American  citizen. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  How  much  do  you  think  the  Government  should 
hand  him?  You  represent  a  congressional  district,  I  see.  How 
much  do  you  think  the  Government  should  let  him  have  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  I  think  the  Government  should  let  him  have  from  $25 
to  $50  per  month  for  the  months  that  he  was  detained  in  the  service  by 
the  Government. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  That  is  your  idea  now,  is  it? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Yes. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  That  would  amount  to  at  least  an  average  of  12 
'months  for  4,000,000  men. 

Mr.  BOIES.  It  would  not  amount  to  more  than  six  months  for 
4,000,000  men. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Don't  you  believe  that  all  of  that  money  would  be  in 
the  hands  of  a  very  small  number  within  two  or  three  months  and 
the  soldier  would  be  in  just  as  bad  a  fix  as  he  was  when  he  was  turned 
loose  ? 

Mi-.  BOIES.  Xot  any  more  so  than  the  pension  that  goes  into  the 
hands  of  every  soldier  who  ever  served  in  any  war  in  this  country. 

Mr.  SMITH  "of  Idaho.  Pensions  are  r>aid  by  the  month  to  meet  his 
current  needs,  where  under  your  plan  it  would  go  to  him  all  in  one 
lump. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  That  would  amount  to  $2,400,000,000. 

Mr.  BOIES.  The  Government  can  very  easily  make  this  payable 
that  way,  and  I  would  approve  of  that,  and  thank  you  for  the  sug- 
gestion, Mr.  Smith. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Judge,  you  would  object  to  any  reconstruction 
measure  of  this  kind  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Yes,  sir ;  at  this  time. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  You  would  be  opposed  to  giving  the  soldier  an 
opportunity  to  acquire  a  home  for  his  family  and  himself  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Yes,  sir;  because  there  isn't,  in  my  judgment,  3  per  cent 
of  the  soldiers  that  desire  it. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Well,  what  is  the  extent  of  your  information  about 
the  soldiers  wanting  to  acquire  homes? 


302  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  BOIES.  It  is  simply  what  I  read  to  you. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  That  is  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Let  me  suggest  that  the  judge  may  be  permitted 
to  first  complete  his  remarks. 

Mr.  BOIES.  I  have  talked  with  soldiers  since,  and  have  received  some 
letters.  I  attach  one  letter  here  from  a  soldier  which  I  received 
yesterday  that  I  never  heard  of  before. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  All  right ;  I  will  suspend. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  don't  want  to  break  you  off. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  That  is  perfectly  all  right.  I  just  wanted  to  elicit 
that  information. 

Mr.  BOIES.  Again,  on  page  21,  it  is  reported  that  the  governor 
said  [reading]  : 

Some  time  ago  I  was  down  in  Currituck,  the  extreme  northeastern  county  of 
the  State,  and  I  said  to  one  of  the  natives,  "  What  do  you  people  raise  down 
here?"  He  replied,  "Ducks  and  Democrats,  hell  and  sweet  potatoes."  Mr. 
Secretary,  I  commend  to  your  consideration  a  soil  that  contributes  to  the  world 
four  of  its  greatest  staples. 

The  governor  having  confirmed 

Mr.  JOHNSON  (interposing).  I  object  to  all  of  that,  Mr.  Chairman. 
That  is  the  rankest  kind  of  partisanship. 

Mr.  BOIES.  Now  that  was  a  little  humor  there.  I  thought  this 
would  probably  be  dry  to  some  of  the  members,  and  I  put  that  in  aa 
a  reflection  of  that  humor. 

The  governor  having  confirmed  the  truth  of  the  "  native's  reply," 
I  trust  the  southern  gentlemen  will  not  take  offense  if  the  friendly 
advice  is  extended  to  them  to  take  off  their  coats  and  raise  mort 
ducks  and  less  Democrats,  more  sweet  potatoes  and  less  hell. 

On  page  27  of  the  document  it  is  of  record  that  Mr.  Elwood  Mead, 
consulting  engineer  United  States  Reclamation  Service,  said : 

The  main  responsibility  for  carrying  out  rural  reconstruction  rests  with  the 
Federal  Government.  It  is  a  Nation's  task  ;ind  most  of  the  money  must  conic 
from  the  Federal  Treasury.  *  *  *  Most  of  this  hind  needs  reclamation; 
logged-off  lands  need  to  he  cleared;  the  Hat  lands  need  to  be  drained,  and  the 
arid  lands  irrigated.  *  *  *  It  would  lie  a  waste  of  time  and  money  to 
create  separate  State  engineering  organizations,  when  one  central  organization 
is  already  equipped  for  this  task.  The  Federal  Government  can  also  give  ;. 
unity  to  plans,  can  exercise  an  expert  supervision  over  local  organization  every- 
where, and  thus  avert  experiments  that  would  certainly  result  in  failure  and 
put  an  end  to  wasteful  and  inefficient  local  efforts  if  such  should  unfortunately 
appear. 

Again,  on  page  29,  this  same  gentleman  is  reported  to  have  said : 
It  takes  hard  work,  economy,  and  self-denial  to  improve  and  pay  for  a  farm. 
The  man  of  the  family  on  one  of  these  farms  will  find  it  easier  to  work  hard 
sind  live  simply  if  all  the  people  around  him  are  also  working  hard  and  living 
simply,  but  if  a  single  settler  is  located  in  a  community  of  well-to-do  easy- 
going families,  with  farms  paid  for,  the  contrast  with  their  conditions  is  dis- 
couraging, and  the  settler  and  his  family  will  fall  into  easy  ways  of  living  and 
very  likely  fail.  *  *  *  No  settler  without  money  should  be  accept eil.  The 
average  soldier  is  not  a  superman.  The  task  of  improving  and  paying  for 
a  farm  without  any  capital  is  a  task  which  requires  superior  qualifica- 
tions. Every  settler  needs  also  a  little  reserve  money  for  accidents  and  mis- 
fortunes. He  needs  a  part  of  the  investment  on  which  lie  docs  not  have  lo  pay 
interest.  Furthermore,  it  will  be  unsafe  for  the  Government  to  intrust  valuable 
property  to  men  who  have  no  money  risk  and  who  could  abandon  it  without 
losing  anything.  Many  of  these  soldiers  will  he  restless,  made  so  by  their  war 
experiences.  To  them  distant  hills  will  look  green.  In  their  own  interest  th'-y 
need  to  be  anchored,  to  have  some  stabilizing  influence,  and  the  most  pot  em  is 
to  have  some  money  invested  that  they  will  lose  if  th;>y  abandon  their  under- 
taking. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  303 

Turn  to  page  32  and  read  further  in  connection  with  what  the 
gentleman  has  to  say : 

On  some  of  the  South  Atlantic  areas  I  have  visited  the  settler  can  make  his 
own  improvements  if  he  is  given  some  help.  Say  to  him  it  will  take  two  or 
three  years  to  clear  this  land  and  bring  the  soil  into  condition  to  produce 
crops ;  no  payments  will  be  required  until  this  work  is  finished.  You  will  be 
paid  for  every  acre  properly  cleared,  for  every  rod  of  fence  built,  and  for  the 
fertilizing  and  manuring  of  the  worn-out  lands. 

Again  he  says : 

When  settlement  begins  there  needs  to  be  created  cooperative  organization 
for  buying  and  selling  and  expert  assistance  and  direction  in  the  building  of 
houses  and  other  improvements,  and  then  when  the  settlers  are  on  the  land 
there  wi.l  be  needed  a  superintendent,  who  will  be  the  adviser  of  the  Govern- 
ment and  a  source  of  encouragement  and  admonition  to  the  settlers.  He  will 
go  among  the  settlers  advising  them  about  farming  methods,  helping  to  save 
them  from  the  consequences  of  inexperience  and  weakness.  The  Government 
will  have  to  depend  on  him  for  advice  as  to  who  shall  be  aided  and  those  upon 
whom  aid  will  be  thrown  away,  because  they  lack  the  qualities  essential  to 
success.  In  many  ways  the  superintendent  of  the  settlement  is  the  most  im- 
portant officer  connected  with  this  movement.  *  *  *  In  every  settlement 
the  first  three  years  will  be  critical,  and  this  is  the  period  where  advice,  en- 
couragement, and  direction  will  mean  much  in  the  creation  of  agriculture  and 
a  rural  life  that  the  Nation  needs,  and  which  nothing  but  community  organi- 
zation and  the  mobilizing  of  the  expert  knowledge  of  the  country  in  constructive 
action  will  create. 

The  general  manager  Xew  Orleans  Association  of  Commerce  says : 

The  project  for  the  creation  of  complete  farm  homes  to  be  sold  to  returning 
soldiers  and  sailors,  which  Secretary  Lane  is  now  developing,  is  a  stepping 
stone  to  a  national  policy  looking  to  a  far-reaching  improvement  in  the  condi- 
tions under  which  farms  are  operated  and  farm  folk  live. 

The  importance  of  this  movement  is  so  great,  not  only  to  the  several  com- 
munities directly  affected,  but  to  the  national  welfare,  that  the  New  Orleans 
Association  of  Commerce  has  sought  the  best  engineering  service  obtainable 
in  order  to  place  itself  in  the  best  possible  position  to  be  of  assistance  to 
Secretary  Lane,  not  only  in  the  formulation  of  his  immediate  project,  but  in 
the  development  of  a  constructive  national  policy  for  the  betterment  of  farm- 
ing conditions  and  the  attraction  of  people  back  to  the  land.  *  *  *  The 
Government  should  acquire  these  waste  regions,  give  them  comprehensive  treat- 
ment and  development,  and  sell  finished  farm  areas  at  value  on  convenient 
terms  to  people  who  have  been  trained  to  make  such  lands  produce  them  a  good 
living.  *  *  *  The  Government,  operating  on  a  large  scale,  would  save 
money,  and  could  produce  finished  units  at  less  cost  than  is  the  cost  with  private 
enterprise,  which  rmist  invariably  combat  conditions  which  would  not  confront 
the  Government  at  all.  *  *  *  In  Louisiana  we  have  9,600,000  acres  of 
humus-covered  alluvial  marsh  lands — much  of  it  treeless — ready  and  waiting 
such  treatment. 

On  page  104  is  shown  a  telegram  to  this  Southern  Land  Congress, 
which  reads  in  part  as  follows : 

You  have  vast  bodies  of  unused  unreclaimed  lands  as  rich  as  any  in  the 
world,  a  climate  and  rainfall  which  can  not  be  improved  upon  for  the  growing  of 
crops,  and  these  things  our  country  is  beginning  to  appreciate.  I  trust  you  will 
be  moved  to  take  practical  steps  by  which  the  Government  can  quickly  coop- 
erate with  the  people  of  the  South,  as  we  hope  it  will  cooperate  with  the  people 
of  the  North  and  West,  in  using  this  opportunity  for  adding  to  the  area  of  our 
productive  lands. 

The  Director  of  the  United  States  Reclamation  Service,  announc- 
ing the  contents  of  the  said  telegram  from  Secretary  Lane  and  the 
fact  that  he  could  not  be  present  as  was  expected,  says  (see  p.  106)  : 

And  just  before  I  left  Washington  the  Secretary  gave  me  instructions,  which 
I  have  transmitted  to  the  men  in  the  field,  to  prepare  the  largest  program  for 
133319—19 20 


304  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

which  we  are  ready,  which  should  be  laid  before  Congress  for  their  considera- 
tion, for  the  solving  of  this  problem,  which  is  coming  much  more  rapidly  than 
at  first  expected.  We  shall  do  the  best  we  can.  The  program  for  the  present 
is  in  the  West.  It  is  niy  desire  to  prepare  at  the  earliest  possible  time  a  similar 
program  for  the  Eastern  States.  *  *  *  (See  p.  107.)  I  have  not  the  au- 
thority to  say  definitely  that  the  Government  will  enter  into  any  such  program. 
That  will  depend  on  the  action  of  Congress.  I  do  know,  though,  that  the  senti- 
ment in  Congress  for  this  plan  is  very  strong.  Our  preliminary  preparations 
have  practically  no  opposition  from  the  committees  of  either  House.  * 
(See  p.  108.)  We  have  already  sent  in,  approved  by  the  President,  an  estimate 
of  appropriation  for  a  million  dollars  to  carry  on  the  investigations  of  swamp 
and  cut-over  lands.  *  *  *  We  have  found  the  utmost  cooperation  through- 
out the  South;  there  have  been  some  skeptics,  of  course.  It  is  a  vast  program, 
still  it  is  possible.  Of  course,  it  could  not  be  thought  possible  that  the  Govern- 
ment was  going  to  undertake  all  the  reclamation  projects  in  the  Southern  States. 
There  are  some  fifty  or  sixty  million  acres  that  might  be  reclaimed.  If  we 
undertook  it  all  at  once,  it  would  justify  the  arguments  made  against  it. 

On  page  111  we  find  the  following  from  the  director  of  advertising 
and  trade  extension,  Southern  Pine  Association : 

I  want  to  say  I  enjoyed  the  talkfest  of  the  governors,  and  if  I  am  ever  called 
on  to  write  advertising  copy  for  a  campaign  to  sell  the  South  I  will  know  some 
wonderful  things  to  say  about  it.  *  *  *  But  this  is  more  or  less  a  big 
business  proposition,  and  comes  right  down  to  the  straight-out  business  of  ex- 
changing cut-over  lands  for  real  honest-to-goodness  spending  money. 

He  should  have  shot  the  unearned  increment  in  his  mind  and  added 
from  the  pockets  of  "  Uncle  Sam." 

The  president  of  the  Georgia  Chamber  of  Commerce,  read  by  the 
general  secretary  of  Georgia  Chamber  of  Commerce,  said,  as  shown 
on  page  143 : 

Not  knowing  just  what  plans  Secretary  Lane  has  to  propose  relative  to  the 
settling  of  our  returning  soldiers  on  our  unoccupied  lands,  that  phase  of  the 
question  must  be  left  to  him.  We  have,  however,  a  larger  problem  and  oppor- 
tunity, for  if  every  soldier  landward  inclined  was  to  settle  in  the  Southeast 
only  a  fraction  of  our  now  unused  land  would  be  put  to  use. 

Perhaps  I  should  make  a  sort  of  apology  to  the  gentlemen  of  the 
South  for  appearing  to  single  them  out  from  among  some  of  their 
brothers  of  the  North  and  West,  who  are  as  fully  interested  in  the 
great  scheme  of  looking  beyond  their  interest  in  the  soldier.  My 
excuse  is  that  these  southern  gentlemen,  from  whom  I  have  quoted, 
have  covenanted  openly,  frankness  being  one  of  the  virtues  of  the 
man  from  the  Southland.  The  northerner  is  more  secretive,  but  I  will 
guarantee  the  southerner  that  the  interested  northerner  or  westerner 
has  been  just  as  busy  in  connection  with  this  matter  as  the  man  from 
the  South.  There  is  not  much  difference  between  the  men  from  the 
two  sections,  excepting  perhaps  the  man  from  the  Southland  is  a  little 
more  effulgent,  not  due  in  any  measure  to  heredity  but  to  climatic 
conditions — it  may  possibly  be  due  in  some  measure  to  the  habit  of 
the  statesmen  from  the  South  in  their  usual  attempt  to  laugh  the 
argument  of  the  northerner  out  of  court. 

I  would  not  pass  without  mentioning  the  fact  that  there  are  many, 
many  good  things  related  in  this  book  to  which  I  have  not  called 
attention.  I  have  simply  drafted  these  quotations  to  show  the  trend 
of  the  minds  of  the  gentlemen  who  spoke  at  that  great  meeting  in 
the  direction  of  the  most  colossal  reclamation  scheme  ever  dreamed 
of  by  man. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  beg  your  pardon 
for  consuming  so  much  time  with  this  subject,  and  the  only  excuse 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  305 

I  have  to  offer  is  based  upon  my  belief  that  this  is  the  most  important 
question,  from  a  financial  point  of  view,  affecting  the  people  of  this 
Government  that  will  be  brought  before  Congress  at  this  session. 
And  the  great  danger,  as  I  see  it,  is  that  the  Government  is  going  to 
be  drawn  into  a  business  so  large  and  so  expensive  as  to  seriously 
injure  the  credit  of  this  Government  when  the  money  necessarily 
required  to  be  expended  is  piled  upon  the  top  of  the  financial  obliga- 
tions of  the  country  to-day.  So  that  if  anything  is  considered  or 
carried  out  under  the  plans  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  those  con- 
siderations and  plans  should  be  confined  strictly  in  the  interest  of  the 
soldiers,  and  those  only,  who  would  like  to  become  the  owner  of  a  10, 
20,  or  40  acre  farm  encumbered  as  proposed  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior.  In  case  the  project  is  confined  absolutely  to  the  welfare 
of  the  soldier,  if  it  may  be  said  to  be  in  his  interest,  an  army  of  new- 
men  will  be  marching  out  of  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
to  take  up  new  duties  without  number.  And  should  the  Government 
be  drawn  into  the  larger  scheme,  that  army  of  men  would  extend 
from  Washington  to  Key  West,  from  there  to  New  Orleans,  across 
the  continent  to  southern'  California,  north  to  the  Canadian  line,  east 
to  the  topmost  point  of  Maine,  and  back  again  to  Washington.  Up 
and  across  the  States  again,  checker-boarding  the  waste  lands  of  this 
country. 

These  men  who  are  interesting  themselves  in  this  project  are  anx- 
ious that  the  Government  "  do  it,"  and  do  it  hurriedly  and  in  a  big 
way.  We  all  know  from  recent  experiences  that  when  this  Govern- 
ment moves  rapidly  and  in  a  big  way  that  waste  and  extravagance 
marks  the  path,  especially  in  connection  with  all  Government  con- 
tracts with  a  "  plus  "  attachment.  Please  do  not  get  the  idea  for  a 
moment  that  I  would  advocate  a  tight-fisted,  stingy  policy  for  this 
Government.  It  ought  to  be  liberal  in  all  good  works,  when  the 
times  warrant  it,  but  to-day  the  tight  affairs  of  this  country  are 
demanding  of  its  agents  in  Congress  all  proper  economy,  and  espe- 
cially until  such  time  as  the  present  great  burden  of  debt  may  be  at 
least  eased  from  the  weary  shoulders  of  those  who  are  required  to 
pay,  pay,  pay.  This  demand  is  not  only  urgent  on  the  part  of  the 
people  who  pay  directly  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  but 
from  all  the  laboring  classes  in  this  country,  most  of  whom  are  having 
hard  work  to  make  both  ends  meet,  though  receiving  the  highest 
wages  ever  paid  mortal  man.  I  beseech  the  patience  of  this  com- 
mittee for  just  a  few  moments  longer  to  discuss  the  feasibility  of  the 
working  plans  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  by  referring  to  the 
hearings  before  the  Subcommittee  on  Appropriations  in  charge  of 
the  sundry  civil  bill  for  1920,  third  session  Sixty-fifth  Congress,  that 
a  line  may  be  had  on  some  of  the  plans  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Inte- 
rior. I  will  not  trespass  upon  your  time  to  call  attention  to  all  that 
Mr.  Lane  said  before  that  committee,  but  this  address  would  be  sor- 
rowfully incomplete  without  some  reference  thereto,  and  I  invite  an 
examination  of  the  hearings  before  such  committee,  especially  as  re- 
corded on  pages  841  to  and  including  862.  You  will  there  find  that 
it  was  proposed  by  a  bill  in  the  Sixty-fifth  Congress,  third  session, 
to  make  an  appropriation  of  $100,000.000  for  the  reclamation  of  waste 
lands.  The  bill  now  pending  before  Congress,  which  contemplates 
launching  the  power  and  authority  into  the  hands  of  the  Secretarj' 


306  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

of  the  Interior,  has  increased  the  amount  to  $500,000,000.  In  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  Secretary,  churches,  community  centers,  and  schools 
shall  be  dedicated;  also  other  public  purposes,  including  town  sites 
inaugurated,  developed,  and  sold.  Mr.  Lane  stated  on  page  842,  sun- 
dry civil  bill  hearings: 

We  want  now  $100,000,000.  That  figure  is  used  not  because  it  is  the  proper 
figure,  in  my  judgment,  because  I  think  it  is  far  too  little  to  meet  the  needs  of 
the  situation,  but  we  want  a  sufficient  amount  of  money  divided  up  among  the 
projects  that  are  feasible  in  each  State,  in  order  to  start  one  of  those  projects 
wherever  possible;  $100,000,000  would  cover  practically  all  of  the  States  in  the 
Union  if  we  put  $2.000,000  into  each  State,  but  there  may  be  some  States  in 
which  there  will  not  be  any  possibility  of  a  project  such  as  we  contemplate. 

I  think,  gentlemen,  that  we  are  going  to  have  need  of  a  great  deal  more 
money.  I  do  not  know  whether  you  want  to  put  this  into  your  record  or  not, 
but  the  reports  that  I  get  from  the  Department  of  Labor  and  the  interviews  that 
I  have  had  with  business  men  and  with  workingmen  indicate  to  me  that  the 
labor  market  is  in  almost  a  state  of  collapse. 

The  time  of  which  the  Secretary  speaks  with  reference  to  a  collapse 
of  the  labor  market  was  last  year.  Since  then  50  per  cent  or  more  of 
the  soldiers  have  been  returned  from  across  the  water  and  approxi- 
mately 70  per  cent  of  all  the  soldiers  on  this  side  have  been  dis- 
charged, and  now  it  does  not  appear  that  the  labor  market  has  "  col- 
lapsed." 

I  heard  Congressman  Fordney  on  the  floor  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives a  few  days  ago  make  the  statement  that  it  was  impossible 
to  secure  an  order  for  an  automobile  within  three  months,  due  to  the 
shortage  of  labor.  I  read  within  the  last  few  days  in  a  report  from 
the  Department  of  Agriculture  that  there  was  now  a  shortage  in 
labor  in  certain  agricultural  lines,  especially  in  the  South. 

The  Sioux  City  Daily  Journal  of  June  1,  1919,  published  in  a  city 
of  about  80,000  inhabitants,  contains  the  following : 

Fifty  calls  for  men  to  serve  in  various  capacities  were  filed  before  9  o'clock 
yesterday  morning  in  the  Federal  employment  Bureau.  Many  additional  calls 
for  help  were  received  later  in  the  day.  The  expected  unusual  demand  of  spring 
and  early  summer  labor  requirements  has  manifest  itself  with  surprising 
strength  in  Sioux  City  territory,  according  to  J.  W.  Holmes,  director  of  the 
agency. 

Among  the  early  calls  yesterday  were  applications  for  10  brickyard  men.  man 
on  coal  wagon  at  $5  a  day.  5  men  in  wholesale  store  warehouses,  5  carpenters 
for  elevator  construction,  3  laborers,  2  cooks,  1  farm  hand  at  $To  a  month,  and 
10  men  to  unload  lumber.  Not  a  single  person  was  available  to  fill  these  vacan- 
cies, offering  liberal  compensation. 

It  is  easily  seen  that  the  strongest  argument  put  forth  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Interior  in  favor  of  the  proposition  is  that  of  furnishing 
Government  labor  for  the  unemployed,  in  order  that  the  labor  market 
might  not  collapse.  If  there  was  any  danger  at  the  time  the  Secretary 
spoke,  it  is  very  apparent  that  the  danger  is  in  no- wise  imminent  to- 
day. 

Again,  on  page  843.  sundry  civil  appropriation  bill  hearing,  the 
Secretary  said: 

This  project  which  I  presented  to  you  gentlemen  of  Congress  and  to  the 
President  last  May  was  intended  originally  to  take  care  of  the  returning  soldier, 
so  that  he  would  not  lie  a  burden  upon  the  labor  market.  It  was  not  exported 
that  we  would  take  care  of  every  soldier  and  of  every  man  thrown  out  of 
work;  that  is,  I  had  no  hope  that  such  an  amount  of  money  could  be  obtained 
from  Congress  as  would  lead  to  that  result;  but  I  am  inclined  to  think  that 
before  this  summer  is  over  you  are  going  to  have  a  demand  made  upon  you 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  307 

which  you  will  have  difficulty  conscientiously  in  resisting  for  ten  times  the 
amount  of  money  that  is  suggested  here.  *  *  With  this  hundred  million  dollars 
we  can,  of  course,  take  care  of  comparatively  few  of  the  soldiers  that  return. 
I  have  here  a  pamphlet  that  I  am  going  to  send  to  you  to-day,  giving  letters 
from  a  number  of  the  boys  who  are  over  in  France  or  who  have  returned  or 
who  are  in  cantonments,  just  such  letters  as  have  been  sent  to  me  from  hun- 
dreds of  other  boys  who  have  seen  some  mention  of  this  proposition  in  the 
newspapers.  I  think  you  will  be  surprised  in  looking  over  them.  I  was  sur- 
prised to  find  a  very  considerable  number  of  letters  from  men  who  come  from 
the  cities  where  the  greatest  congestion  is,  men  who  have  gotten  a  taste  for 
outdoor  life  and  want  to  continue  it.  There  is  no  use  in  putting  such  men  on 
a  farm,  on  a  piece  of  prairie  land  out  in  the  mountains  of  California,  or  the 
plains  of  Wyoming,  or  down  in  southern  Colorado  and  saying.  "  Here  is  160 
or  320  acres  of  land ;  go  to  it  and  make  a  living."  They  have  nothing  to  live  on  ; 
they  do  not  know  how  to  farm ;  they  do  not  know  what  crops  will  grow  there ; 
they  have  nothing  with  which  to  build  even  a  shack,  nothing  with  which  to  buy 
tools,  so  that  it  would  be  simply  turning  a  fellow  loose  on  the  desert  to  ask 
him  to  take  up  any  of  our  public  lands.  We  have  about  230,000,000  acres  of 
public  lands,  most  of  which  is  valueless.  The  larger  part  of  it  is  at  the  top  of 
the  Rocky  Mountains. 

You  will  notice  that  it  is  said  these  soldiers  whom  the  Secretary 
proposes  to  provide  for  have  no  money  with  which  to  help  themselves, 
"  with  which  to  build  even  a  shack."  Yet  the  bill  before  Congress 
proposes  that  these  soldiers  shall  buy  live  stock  and  equipment,  but 
that  the  Government  will  not  lend  them  to  exceed  60  per  cent  of  the 
cost.  Is  it  not  well  to  stop  long  enough  to  inquire  from  whom  they 
are  going  to  borrow  the  40  per  cent  ?  The  proposition  is  only  to  loan 
soldier  settlers  not  to  exceed  $800  for  the  purchase  of  the  necessary 
live  stock  and  equipment.  Is  there  anyone  familiar  at  all  with  the 
price  of  live  stock  and  equipment  sufficient  to  carry  on  a  farm  of  any 
size  who  does  not  know  that  it  would  cost  two  or  three  times  $800 
to  purchase  the  necessary  live  stock  and  equipment  to  operate  a  small 
farm  successfully. 

The  bill  before  Congress  also  provides  that  the  Secretary  may  also, 
through  agreement  with  the  soldier  settler,  make  provision  for  neces- 
sary improvements,  but  the  contribution  from  the  fund  shall  in  no 
single  case  exceed  $1,200  or  in  excess  of  three-quarters  of  the  cost  or 
value  of  the  improvements.  Who  will  tell  us  where  the  soldier  settler, 
"  who  has  nothing  to  live  on,"  has  "  nothing  with  which  to  build  even 
a  shack,"  is  going  to  get  the  other  $400?  If  he  could  procure  the 
extra  $400  from  some  unnamed  source,  and  after  he  had  borrowed 
$1,200  from  the  Government  he  would  have  $1,600  with  which  to 
make  the  necessar}-  improvements  upon  his  farm — to  build  his  house, 
to  have  a  bath  therein,  as  suggested  by  the  Secretary.  A  house  with 
a  heating  plant,  made  necessary  by  the  appearance  of  a  bathtub.  To 
build  a  granary,  to  build  a  hen  house,  to  build  the  hog  houseings,  to 
construct  a  water  and  heating  system,  because  a  bathtub  without  a 
water  system  would  be  a  worthless  piece  of  furniture,  as  the  good 
wife  of *this  young  soldier  settler  would  not  be  content  with  heating 
the  bath  water  in  a  tea  kettle.  This  is  mentioned  because  the  plan 
proposed  is  to  be  such  that  not  only  the  young  soldier  settler,  but  his 
wife,  may  live  in  "  contentment "  and  stick  to  the  farm.  We  have 
not  yet  built  the  barn  for  the  soldier  settler,  nor  dug  him  a  well  nor 
cistern,  nor  fenced  any  portion  of  the  farm,  nor  purchased  or  set  out 
any  fruit  trees  or  any'of  the  smaller  fruit-bearing  shrubs. 

It  will  be  borne  in  mind  that  inasmuch  as  the  230,000.000  of  acres 
of  public  lands  are  largely  "  on  the  top  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  "  it 


308  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

will  be  necessary  to  deal  with  State  governments  and  private  parties 
in  the  procurement  of  the  land  by  the  Government.  In  speaking  of 
irrigation  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  on  page  844,  sundry  civil 
hearings,  refers  to  the  Colorado  Eiver,  the  Snake  River,  the  Sac- 
ramento River,  the  Platte  River,  and  the  St.  Mary's  River  to  afford 
him  water  for  such  purpose.  How  much  money  will  the  Govern- 
ment have  to  expend  in  order  to  check  these  rivers  for  irrigation 
purposes  ? 

The  Secretary  says  (p.  843,  sundry  civil  hearings)  : 

Effort  has  been  made  to  colonize  those  lands  and  to  cultivate  them.  That 
effort,  in  great  part,  has  been  a  failure  because  they  have  not  been  handled  in 
any  more  scientific  or  reasonable  way  than  we  have  handled  our  public 
lands. 

Still,  on  the  same  page,  the  Secretary  says: 

If  you  take  those  lands  and  divide  them  up  into  small  farms,  sufficiently 
large  to  support  adequately  a  family  of  five,  and  center  those  farms  in  toward 
the  settlement  in  a  way  somewhat  similar  to  the  Mormon  settlements  of  Utah. 
with  the  nucleus  of  the  settlement  a  community  in  which  there  would  be  some 
growing  life;  if  you  have  every  one  of  these  farms  connected  up  with  that 
central  community  by  a  good  road  and  by  telephones,  and  have  the  central 
community  either  on  a  railroad  or  adjacent  to  one  and  connected  with  the 
railroad  by  a  good  wagon  road;  if  you  have  that  central  community  a  mar- 
keting center  so  that  the  settlers  can  buy  and  sell  cooperatively ;  if  you  have 
some  of  the  evidences  of  civilization  in  that  community,  such  as  a  good  school, 
instead  of  the  single-room  schoolhouse  that  we  have  very  generally  where  we 
pay  the  teacher  $40  a  month  and  she  teachers  everything  from  the  A  B  C's 
to  higher  algebra ;  if  you  have  a  moving-picture  show  and  a  good  store  and 
other  evidences  of  community  life,  you  will  be  able  to  do  the  one  thing  that 
seems  to  me  ought  to  be  done  throughout  the  entire  United  States  if  we  are 
going  to  maintain  this  as  an  agricultural  country,  and  that  is,  make  the  women 
contented. 

May  I  ask  who  are  we  going  to  get  to  build  the  railroads  into 
all  these  settlements  proposed — the  Railroad  Administration  or  the 
bankrupt  concerns?  -  Remember,  that  the  project  contemplates  get- 
ting these  soldier  boys  onto  these  farms  quickly,  and  where  is  the 
money  coming  from  to-day  to  accomplish  all  of  these  vast  projects? 
Does  "it  not  suggest  a  beautiful  dream.  I  should  not  take  up  the 
time  to  quote  all  that  the  Secretary  says,  but  ask  you  to  turn  to  the 
sundry  civil  appropriation  bill  hearings  for  full  information.  The 
Secretary,  on  page  845  of  the  hearing,  also  says  on  this  same  sub- 
ject, "  the  farmer  should  learn  to  buy  fertilizer  by  the  carload." 
which  everybody  knows  would  be  necessary  in  order  to  bring  this 
stump  land  into  any  sort  of  condition  for  agricultural  purposes. 
Who  is  going  to  furnish  fertilizer  to  the  young  soldier- farmer.  The 
Secretary  asks  him  to  "  chip  in "  a  few  dollars  to  pay  for  a  co- 
operative creamery  or  to  have  him  raise  the  standard  of  his  hogs  and 
of  his  cattle.  The  Secretary  further  says : 

All  of  these  things  require  a  good  deal  of  education,  and  so  we  want  to  have 
an  agricultural  educator  in  each  one  of  these  settlements,  who  will  tell  the  set- 
tlers what  kind  of  crops  should  be  put  in  and  how  the  crops  should  rotate  in 
order  to  maintain  the  fertility  of  the  soil. 

Is  it  proposed  that  the  soldier  boy  shall  spend  the  time  in  acquir- 
ing an  education  in  agriculture  after  he  shall  have  dug  in  the  ditches 
for  a  year  to  drain  the  swamp  land  or  has  helped  to  pull  stumps 
from  the  sandy  land  of  the  north,  whereby  he  is  to  earn  at  least  $500, 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  309 

before  he  goes  onto  the  land  and  before  he  can  commence  to  put 
in  a  crop? 

The  Secretary  is  made  to  say,  on  page  847  of  the  hearings : 

We  have  had  a  very  active  canvass  of  the  South,  and  there  are  a  great 
many  million  acres  down  there,  chiefly  along  the  coastal  plain,  which  have 
been  cut  over,  need  drainage,  in  fact,  can  not  be  used  without  drainage,  that 
are  available  and  that  will  be  extremely  useful. 

At  the  top  of  the  page  848  the  Secretary  says : 

Oh,  yes ;  I  saw  in  North  Carolina  what  is  marked  on  the  map  the  Great 
Green  Swamp,  which  you  would  think  was  something  like  the  Dismal  Swamp, 
or  worse;  that  you  could  not  go  into  it.  That  was  developed  by  some  timber- 
men,  chiefly  from  Minnesota,  and  they  have  taken  part  of  it  and  driven  a  big 
canal  through  every  mile,  and  then  put  in  small  lateral  drainage  canals,  I  think 
about  every  40  acres.  I  went  into  the  heart  of  that  thing,  where  they  had  cut 
over  a  lot  of  the  land  and  let  a  fire  sweep  over  it ;  then  they  had  a  lot  of  boys 
carrying  a  string,  as  they  went  along,  stretching  out  over  the  field,  and  at 
every  pace  they  would  take  a  stick  and  push  it  down  5  or  6  inches  in  the 
ground,  then  drop  a  couple  of  seeds  of  corn  in.  They  had  gone  over  this  200 
acres  in  that  way.  I  saw  that  land  when  there  was  corn  on  it  10  feet  high ; 
no  plow  had  ever  been  put  into  it;  it  had  never  been  hoed,  and  the  bins  were 
full  of  ears  of  corn  a  foot  long — wonderfully  productive  stuff.  I  fancy  the 
whole  South  has  vast  areas  of  lands  like  that.  I  know  of  one  association 
down  there  that  has  40,000,000  acres  of  unused,  and  they  claim,  tillable  land. 

Now,  if  it  is  not  true  that  the  soldier  boy  is  not  to  be  put  upon  this 
land,  there  is  no  use  of  talking  about  it,  but  if  it  is  necessary  to  dig 
a  big  canal  every  mile  and  put  in  small  lateral  drainage  canals  a  huge 
amount  of  money  is  going  to  be  required  to  bridge  these  canals  be- 
cuse  the  good  roads  proposed  will  be  of  no  avail  unless  the  canals  are 
bridged. 

This  land  was  necessarily  very  moist  where  the  Secretary  saw  them 
planting  corn  5  or  6  inches  deep.  It  may  be  the  proper  thing  to 
plant  corn  in  the  swamps  of  North  Carolina  at  that  depth,  but  when 
I  was  taught  farming  I  was  told  to  plant  it  shallow  when  the  ground 
was  in  a  damp  condition  and  deeper  when  the  ground  was  dry. 

Speaking  of  the  everglades  of  Florida,  the  Secretary  says,  on  page 
848  (sundry  civil  hearing)  : 

Tlint  land  is,  of  course,  just  filled  with  the  seepage  of  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  years,  and  there  are  a  million — 1  think  it  is  a  million  and  three  hundred 
thousand  or  a  million  and  one  hundred  thousand — acres  of  such  land  that  is 
owned  by  the  State  of  Florida.  All  that  land  has  been  turned  over  to  a  board 
which  has  been  given  plenary  power,  and  they  would  put  that  or  any  portion  of 
it  at  our  disposal.  *  *  *  And  too  much  emphasis  can  not  be  put  on  drain- 
age. I  think  drainage  in  the  United  States  is  just  as  important  as  irrigation. 
The  South  has  been  cursed  for  50  years,  not  so  much  by  the  war  as  by  its 
reputation  for  having  malaria  and  yellow  fever.  And  we  have  got  to  take  those 
lands  and  clean  out  the  water  so  that  the  malaria  or  yellow-fever  mosquito  can 
not  bread  there ;  and  we  can  then  make  those  lands  perfectly  wholesome. 

The  Secretary  again  proposes  good  roads,  good  enough  for  the  sol- 
dier farmer  to  run  an  automobile  over  them.  This  young  farmer  will 
probably  not  buy  an  automobile  the  first  year. 

We  now  come  to  the  proposition  as  to  some  of  the  things  that  the 
young  soldier  will  be  required  to  pay  for  in  advance,  according  to 
the  plan.  Secretary  Lane,  on  page  850  says : 

My  contract  would  be  that  that  mail  should  go  on  and  pay.  I  think  a  rea- 
sona'ble  figure  would  be  10  per  cent  in  advance.  We  estimate  that  these  farms 
^vill  cost,  improved,  between  $4,000  and  $5.000  apiece,  and  that  a  man  would 
pay  perhaps  $400  or  $500  down. 


310  .  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  Gillett  asks  the  question :  "  Where  would  he  get  it  ? 

Secretary  Lane  answers,  "  By  working  on  the  project.  You  see  he 
makes  his  own  farm,  and  he  would  work  on  it,  and  we  would  give 
him  decent  wages.  He  can  save  enough  for  the  first  payment  if  he  is 
thrifty  at  all,  and  we  would  not  want  him  if  he  was  not.  There 
ought  to  be  a  little  latitude  there.  We  ought  not  to  be  forced  to  take 
any  fellow  who  did  not  have  any  aptitude  for  this  thing  and  who 
did  not  show  the  slightest  desire  to  be  a  farmer,  but  simply  wanted 
to  grab  hold  of  one  of  these  farms." 

I  do  not  anticipate  that  it  would  be  necessary  to  increase  the 
Secret  Service  to  an  alarming  extent  in  order' to  prevent  most  of  the 
boys  from  attempting  to  grab  one  of  these  farms. 

On  page  851  the  Secretary  says: 

After  he  gets  on  there  we  hope  to  be  able  to  subordinate  our  lien,  or  make  it 
run  concurrently  with  a  loan  from  the  farm  loan  bank,  by  which,  under 
proper  supervision,  he  could  get  money  that  would  go  into  actual  things,  such 
as  cattle  and  sheep  and  hogs,  and  perhaps  increment,  so  that  you  could  keep 
an  eye  on  him  and  see  what  kind  of  use  he  makes  of  the  money. 

On  page  854  the  question  is  propounded : 

Does  your  scheme  contemplate  any  contribution  on  the  part  of  the  individ- 
ual? Secretary  Lane:  Yes:  an  initial  payment  on  the  part  of  the  individual 
of  10  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  the  project. 

In  this  connection  please  bear  in  mind  that  the  Secretary  estimates 
that  the  farm  will  cost  the  Government  $4,000  or  $5,000  so  that  the 
young  farmer-soldier  boy  must  pay  upon  that  valuation  $400  or  $500. 
The  Government  will  in  addition  loan  him  $1,200  for  improvements ; 
to  this  he  must  add  $400.  That  makes  $900  that  he  must  pay  down. 
On  top  of  this  I  believe  any  practical  farmer  will  tell  you  that  the 
young  solder  boy  will  have  to  put  up  in  addition  to  the  $1,600  for 
improvements  at  least  $2,000  in  order  to  bring  his  farm  up  anywhere 
near  the  ideal  condition  that  the  Secretary  suggests  in  order  to  make 
the  young  people  "  contented." 

Gentlemen,  it  is  a  great  scheme,  but  it  won't  work.  It  is  a  fine  word 
picture,  but  you  can't  realize  on  it. 

I  also  desire  to  refer  you  to  Secretary  Lane's  testimony  at  a  hear- 
ing before  the  Committee  on  Irrigation  of  Arid  Lands,  House  of 
Representatives,  Sixty-fifth  Congress,  third  session.  Friday,  January 
10,  1919.  I  will  not  detain  you  long,  but  will  give  a  few  quotations 
therefrom. 

On  page  9  the  Secretary  said : 

Now.  gentlemen,  I  have  asked,  and  I  think  Mr.  Byrnes  of  South  Carolina  has 
put  in  an  amendment  to  the  appropriation  bill  for  an  appropriation  of  $100,- 
000,000  .for  this  plan.  My  only  regret  about  that  is  that  the  amount  is  so 


small.     It  is  ridiculously,  absurdly 
on  40-acre  farms  or  50-acre  farms. 
the  land,  the  cottage,  the  barn,  th< 
crop  put  in,  the  necessary  farm  in 
and  his  wife  can  move  in  immediate 
I   would  take  all  these  boys  person 
gone  to  your  homes,  and  do  not  fii 
then  here  is  a  job  for  you.    We  will 


mall.  *  :  '  Let  us  give  to  these  men, 
i»t  merely  the  bare  land,  but  a  home  upon 
land  fenced  in,  the  land  plowed,  the  first 
ilements,  and  have  the  place  ready  so  he 
v  and  go  to  work  upon  that  place.  *  *  ' 
lly  and  say  to  them,  "If,  after  you  have 
1  the  old  job  all  ready  and  open  for  you. 
the  current  rate  of  wages  while  you 


are  clearing  this  ground,  while  you  arc  removing  the  stumps  and  undergrowth, 
while  you  are  draining  this  swamp,  digging  that  ditch  or  building  that  dam 
in  the  Par  West;  we  will  give  you  good  wages,  we  will  take  care  of  you  in  a 
barracks  that  will  look  palatial  to  you.  Then,  after  you  have  worked  for  a  year 
or  two  years  upon  that  project,  pick  out  your  farm." 


HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS.  311 

On  page  11  it  is  shown  that  the  Secretary  said: 
We  can  not  possibly  give  employment  to  more  than  100,000. 
This  was  said  in  the  light  of  the  appropriation  of  $100,000,000. 
Later  on  the  same  page  it  was  recorded  that  the  Secretary  said : 

But  we  ought  to  have  work  for  the  man  when  he  conies  back  and  if  times 
become  hard  three  months  from  now,  I  want  you  to  think  about  this  propo- 
sition— that  in  Michigan  and  Wisconsin  we  can  put  at  work  just  as  many  men 
as  will  be  out  of  employment  in  the  Great  Central  West,  and  down  in  North 
and  South  Carolina  and  Florida  and  Louisiana  we  can  put  more  men  at  work — 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  men,  if  need  be,  and  care  for  them.  All  that  will 
be  necessary  will  be  to  have  the  money.  We  can  not  do  it  with  $100,000,000. 

Figures  talk:  The  plan  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  was  to 
work  100,000  men  with  or  under  an  appropriation,  as  proposed,  of 
$100.000,000.  Xow  it  is  proposed  to  appropriate  us  a  starter  $500,- 
000,000.  and  it  is  not  easy  to  arrive  at  any  other  conclusion  from  the 
Secretary's  testimony  that  he  would  work  500,000  men  under  the 
$500,000.000  appropriation  as  he  says  he  can  work  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  men  and  care  for  them  if  lie  can  get  the  money. 

The  Secretary  can  not  expect  soldiers  to  dig  ditches  and  grub 
stumps,  living  in  barracks  away  from  home  and  in  strange  lands, 
even  though  the  work  is  done  by  machinery,  for  less  than  a  driver 
of  a  coal  wagon  is  receiving,  to  wit,  $5  per  day;  500.000  men.  and 
that  is  only  1  in  8  of  the  whole  number  of  soldiers,  at  $5  per  day 
will  cost  $2,500,000  for  every  eiffht  hours  work,  or  $65,000,000  per 
month  of  26  days.  If  the  $500,000,000  was  all  devoted  to  the  pay- 
ment of  wages  to  the  soldiers  it  would  last  seven  months  or  a  little 
over.  However,  we  can  not  start  this  plan  from  that  end.  The  land 
proposed  to  be  built  up  into  thousands  and  thousands  of  farms  ^  ill 
first  have  to  be  purchased,  as  the  Secretary  is  not  authorized  under 
this  bill  to  spend  the  $500,000,000  in  payment  of  wages,  machinery, 
mobilization  of  the  army  of  500,000  soldiers,  and  in  addition  to  the 
Interior  Department  of  thousands  of  experts,  governors,  superin- 
tendents, and  run  up  millions  and  millions  to  be  taken  care  of  in 
deficiency  appropriations.  The  sum  of  money  to  be  expended  before 
a  shovelful  of  dirt  is  removed  or  a  stump  pulled  is  beyond  my  com- 
prehension, and  I  doubt  if  anyone  has  taken  a  pencil  in  hand  to  esti- 
mate it.  The  probabilities  are.  making  a  fair  guess,  that  before  the 
real  work  started  a  good  share  of  this  $500,000,000  would  have  been 
expended  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  would  noi  have  funds 
sufficient  to  pay  the  wages  of  the  500,000  soldiers  for  7  months  nor 
of  100,000  soldiers  for  3  months. 

If  Congress  saddles  this  scheme  on  to  the  Government  no  man  in 
Congress  to-day  will  live  to  see  the  time  when  the  debt  incurred  is 
liquidated.  This  is  the  debit  side  of  the  question.  The  other  ques- 
tion, that  is  more  easily  presented,  is  the  fact  that  no  considerable 
per  cent  of  the  soldiers  will  invest  in  the  proposition.  More  than 
a  million  of  the  soldiers  have  now  returned  from  France,  about  TO  per 
cent  of  the  whole  number  on  this  side  discharged  and  yet  the  labor 
market  has  not  collapsed,  and  I  do  not  believe  the  soldier  boys  intend 
to  create  any  disturbance  in  this  country.  The  soldier  has  the  right 
to  be  counseled  as  to  what  he  desires,  and  should  not  be  farmed  off 
on  land  that  is  old  and  worthless,  under  all  the  plans  laid  down  for 
them:  with  governors  and  overseers  to  live  among  them,  to  tell  them 


312  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

what  to  do  and  how  to  do  it,  and  to  see  that  they  do  not  rob  the 
Government. 

Congress  has  already  appropriated  $200,000  to  make  the  survey 
of  the  swamp  and  cutover  lands,  and  in  this  connection  Mr.  Lane 
says,  "  We  have  not  had  enough  money  to  make  complete  recon- 
naissance." Anyone  is  justified  in  coming  to  the  conclusion,  after 
reading  the  record,  that  this  general  survey  at  an  expense  of  $200,000 
has  been  in  most  part  if  not  entirely  a  survey  by  the  eye.  Mr.  Lane 
also  says  on  page  13  of  hearings  before  Committee  on  Irrigation, 
Sixty-third  Congress : 

"One  of  the  things  \ve  ought  to  know  definitely  very  quickly  is  whether  you 
are  going  to  do  this  or  not.  because  we  have  got  to  get  a  personnel,  the  direr-ting 
and  managerial  men  together,  and  we  ought  to  know  in  advance  whether  this 
will  go  through  so  as  to  plan  for  an  organization  in  each  one  of  these  States. 
We  practically  will  have  to  have  -4.">  or  more  different  organizations." 

Mr.  Lane  says  on  page  14  (same  hearings)  :  "  On  the  irrigation 
projects  in  the  West  it  might  be  that  20  or  30  acres  will  be  ample," 
speaking  of  the  size  of  the  soldier's  farm.  "  In  the  South  he  would 
probably  get  more  than  on  the  irrigation  project — probably  50,  60, 
80,  or  100  acres,  depending  upon  the  kind  of  agriculture  for  which 
tb^t  proiect  was  fitted." 

Page  16,  same  hearings,  Mr.  Lane  says : 

You  know  that  private  irrigation  schemes  failed  in  the  West  very  largely 
because,  after  some  years  of  experiment,  private  capital  would  no  longer 
go  into  it,  and  then  the  United  States  was  forced  into  the  enterprise. 

Mr.  OLIVER.  Do  any  of  your  plans  contemplate  asking  for  State  cooperation 
and  help? 

Secretary  LANE.  All  our  plans  do,  but  I  very  much  doubt  if  we  will  get  more 
out  of  the  States  than  advice  and  counsel  and  education  of  the  men  and 
some  consideration,  perhaps,  after  the  projects  are  founded.  We  did  think 
it  might  be  possible  for  the  States  to  buy  the  land  and  turn  the  land  over  to 
us.  But  I  think  that  is  very  unlikely. 

There  has  been  much  talk  about  the  Capitol  since  Congress  was 
convened  in  this  extraordinary  session  concerning  the  average  price 
that  the  Government  would  have  to  pay  for  the  land,  and  the  con- 
sensus of  opinion  seems  to  be  that  it  would  cost  the  Government 
about  $15  per  acre.  It  is  very  easy  to  believe  that  if  the  Govern- 
ment gets  started  in  such  a  way  as  that  it  can  not  well  withdraw, 
the  price  for  this  land  will  materially  advance.  I  believe  that  to 
be  the  history  of  most  land  deals. 

Now,  in  order  to  be  reasonable  and  to  accommodate  those  gentle- 
men who  are  opposed  to  my  reading  this  entire  manuscript,  it  may  be 
understood  that  I  may  hand  my  manuscript  to  the  clerk  and  that  it 
will  be  printed  in  the  record.  If  that  is  done  I  will  omit  a  great 
portion  of  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  there  is  no  objection  to  that,  that  may  be  done. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  To  be  fair,  I  will  withdraw  any  objection  I  have 
to  it.  I  am  a  southerner. 

Mr.  BOIES.  I  attempt  to  give  some  figures  here  that  show  where 
the  Government  would  land  if  Mr.  Lane's  proposition  is  carried  out; 

The  several  departments  of  the  working  organization  of  this 
Government  are  helpful  and  proper  when  they  confine  themselves 
to  the  power  and  authority  intended  to  be  conferred.  I  believe  that 
it  is  generally  conceded  that  man  is  a  selfish  being.  I  also  believe 
that  it  is  well  known  that  the  departments  in  the  State  as  well  as 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  313 

in  the  Nation,  where  no  budget  system  is  in  vogue,  are  grabbing 
for  about  all  the  money  they  can  get  for  their  deptartments  in  order 
to  make  the  best  showing  possible.  Our  present  plan  has  been  in 
existence  altogether  too  long,  and  there  appears  now  to  be  a  genuine 
desire  to  work  out  some  practical  so-called  budget  system  for  this 
Government — all  hail  the  day. 

In  conclusion  I  desire  to  acquaint  you  with  the  opinion  of  a 
soldier,  with  whom  I  am  not  acquainted,  who  wrote  me  from  Des 
Moines,  Iowa,  under  date  June  3,  1919,  as  follows: 
Hon.  JUDGE  BOIES,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  JUDGE:  The  writer,  who  has  just  been  discharged  from  service,  although 
not  being  as  fortunate  as  a  good  many  of  my  comrades  in  that  I  was  stationed 
in  this  country  while  being  in  the  Army,  has  just  read  an  article  in  the 
Register  and  Tribune,  of  Des  Moines,  dated  June  3,  1919. 

I  agree  with  you.  Judge,  that  the  average  soldier  does  not  wish  any  land,  but 
does  very  much  prefer  a  liberal  bonus  of  some  kind.  We  did  not  hesitate  when 
we  were  called  and  gave  up  our  business  or  in  whatever  line  we  were  to  serve 
this  country. 

Nearly  every  returned  soldier  from  Iowa  was  very  much  disappointed  upon 
finding  that  Iowa  did  not  give  each  man  a  bonus  of  some  kind.  For  instance. 
North  Dakota  gave  each  returned  soldier  $25  per  month  for  every  month  he 
was  in  the  service,  while  Minnesota,  I  am  advised,  has  given  $25  for  every  two 
months. 

Most  of  the  boys  with  whom  I  have  talked  about  this  proposition  claim  that 
they  are  trying  to  unload  some  southern  swamp  land  upon  us,  and  I  urge  you  in 
behalf  of  the  rest  of  the  boys  of  Iowa  to  have  Congress  make  an  appropriation 
giving  the  returned  soldiers  a  liberal  bonus. 

I  wish  to  now  record  my  attitude  toward  the  brave  young  man  who 
offered  his  services  in  behalf  of  his  country  and  in  behalf  of  humanity 
by  saying  that  I  stand  ready  to  vote  for  a  cash  payment  to  him,  or  in 
the  form  of  bonds,  in  the  sum  of  $25  to  $50  for  every  month  that  he 
was  detained  in  the  Government  service. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the'  committee,  I  thank  you  very 
kindly  for  your  patience.  I  have  spoken  my  piece.  Those  who  be- 
lieve with  me  will  probably  approve :  those  who  do  not  will  undoubt- 
edly criticize.  I  realize  fully  that  I  am  responsible  for  what  I  have 
said  and  am  willing  to  take  the  consequences.  The  only  regret  I  have 
is  that  I  did  not  have  sufficient  time  to  present  this  address  in  a  more 
acceptable  manner. 

Xow.  there  is  an  addendum  with  reference  to  the  examinations  be- 
fore your  committee  that  I  did  not  have  an  opportunity  to  examine, 
as  the  print  did  not  come  into  my  hands  until  yesterday  evening. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  What  is  the  form  of  the  addendum? 

Mr.  BOIES.  It  is  just  headed  "Addendum." 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  What  does  it  contain  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  It  contains  hearings  that  you  have  had  before  you  here 
and  comments  thereon. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  It  is  all  to  be  included  in  this  record  of  your  speech? 

Mr.  Bores.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Is  it  something  you  wrote  yourself,  Judge,  this  ad- 
dendum ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  And  you  want  it  included  as  part  of  the  record  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Yes, 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  didn't  know;  you  stated  you  didn't  have  time  to 
examine  it. 


314  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  BOIES.  I  would  not  put  it  upon  anybody  else's  shoulders,  that 
they  wrote  any  of  it. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  said  you  had  not  had  a  chance  to  examine  it. 

ADDENDUM. 

The  hearings  before  the  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands  of  the  House  of 
Representatives,  May  27  to  31,  1919.  being  Part  I,  which  was  not  distributed 
from  the  printer's  hands  until  yesterday  evening,  I  have  toad  but  very  little  time 
to  examine. 

Mr.  Mondell.  appearing  before  that  committee  (see  p.  6),  said:  "I  conferred 
with  the  officials  of  the  Interior  Department,  with  the  Secretary  of  the  In- 
terior, and  with  the  gentlemen  who  he  called  to  his  aid,  among  others,  Mr.  Cory 
and  Mr.  Suiythe.  *  *  *  So  the  bill  you  have  before  you  is  my  bill  only  in 
the  sense  that  I  availed  myself  of  all  of  the  suggestions  that  had  been  made 
and  that  had  been  urged  in  regard  to  the  legislation." 

On  page  15,  Mr.  Elston  said :  "  In  other  words,  Mr.  Mondell,  although  this  is 
an  authorization  for  $500,000,000,  the  first  appropriation  for  this  current  year 
need  not  necessarily  be  the  full  amount ;  it  might  be  much  less. 

"  Mr.  MONDELL.  My  thought  is  at  this  time,  and  I  do  not  make  that  suggestion 
as  at  all  conclusive  or  as  intended  to  bind  anybody,  that  $100,000000  or 
$125,000,000  at  the  most,  is  all  that  could  be  economically  expended  within  a 
year." 

Mr.  Raker,  on  page  17,  said :  "  What  I  want  to  do  is  to  get  your  view  on 
the  matter,  and  later  the  view  of  the  committee,  as  to  whether  you  believe  it 
advisable  under  any  circumstances  to  permit  the  obtaining  of  a  home  under 
any  of  these  projects  and  then  permit  regulations  to  be  promulgated  or  authority 
extended  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  whereby  the  homesteader — and  that 
is  what  I  want  to  call  him — could  live  in  town  and  not  live  upon  his  farm 
or  home ;  that  is,  not  make  his  home  his  permanent  place  of  abode. 

"Mr.  MONDELL.  I  am  glad  the  gentleman  called  attention  to  that,  because  that 
is  exactly  one  of  the  things  I  had  in  mind  in  drafting  the  language  of  this 
provision,  and  if  you  will  note  the  language  you  will  see  it  authorizes  the 
soldier  to  live  anywhere  in  the  settlement.  The  thought  is  that  the  Secretary 
shall  require  the  soldier  to  live  in  the  settlement." 

Mr.  Baer.  on  page  22,  said :  "  There  is  only  one  more  qualification  to  be  con- 
sidered am1  that  is  experience.  If  the  applicant  is  a  farmer's  boy  and  has 
lived  on  the  farm  for  years,  he  would  be  more  likely  to  be  a  successful  farmer 
than  some  clerk  in  a  store.  The  trouble  is  that  they  will  try  to  get  people  who 
are  clerks  in  stores  or  banks  who  can  no  more  run  a  farm  than  a  farmer's  son 
can  run  the  First  National  Bank  of  New  York.  They  are  not  experienced  and 
do  not  know  anything  about  it." 

Mr.  Ferris,  on  page  23 :  "A  soldier  came  to  me  yesterday  and  with  bated 
breath  said  that  this  would  not  amount  to  anything  for  the  soldiers,  because 
it  requires  him  to  put  up  one-fourth  of  the  money  for  the  improvements  and 
5  per  cent  of  the  purchase  price  of  the  land.  He  said  that  for  that  reason, 
the  soldiers  being  penni'ess,  this  will  be  of  no  value  to  them.  I  did  not  agree 
with  him,  but  I  thought  it  well  to  call  attention  to  it." 

(I  request  that  the  committee  have  here  printed  at  this  point  with  my  re- 
marks, the  Secretary's  questionnaire,  including  its  heading,  found  on  pages 
33,  34,  and  35.) 

Secretary  Lane,  on  page  35:  "We  have  about  100,000  men  still  left  in 
France,  and  I  do  not  know  what  percentage  of  the  men  in  the  cantonments  have 
been  demobilized,  but  you  must  realize  that  as  an  outgrowth  of  this  bill,  if  you 
were  to  give  us  this  year  $125,000,000  that  would  take  care  of  approximately 
25,000  farms,  so  that  the  drain  made  upon  farm  labor  in  New  York  cou'd  not 
be  very  great. 

"  Mr.  SNELL.  I  am  especially  interested  in  the  condition  of  the  farmers  at  the 
present  time.  I  represent  a  purely  agricultural  district,  and  there  is  abso- 
lutely no  help  to  be  obtained  to  work  on  the  farms.  All  of  our  people  ;m> 
very  much  interested  in  anything  that  will  tend  to  disturb  what  little  farm 
labor  there  is." 

It  seems  to  me  if  a  project  of  this  kind  were  established  in  the  central  p:irt 
of  New  York  Stale  in  which  you  would  employ,  say,  1.000  men.  paying  them 
$4  or  $5  per  day.  the  few  farm  laborers  that  we  have  would  flock  down  there. 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  315 

Legitimate  farmers  could  not  compete  with  that  sort  of  market  for  labor  and 
make  a  living. 

Mr.  SXKI.L.  How  many  men  would  you  put  on  a  project  in  its  initial  stages, 
for  instance? 

Secretary  LANE.  I  would  suppose  that  if  we  got  4,000  men  on  a  project  that 
we  would  be  doing  extremely  well. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Page  36:  "The  taking  of  4.000  farm  laborers  from  central  New 
York  would  absolutely  cripple  us  with  what  we  have  there  at  the  present 
time.1' 

SKtitKTAUY  LANE.  These  men  are  not  farm  laborers,  but  they  are  men  who  are 
interested  in  this  proposition,  or  men  who  have  been  everything — street-car  con- 
ductors, foresters,  miners,  etc.  They  are  not  farm  laborers  who  have  sent  these 
requests  to  us.  About  70  or  80  per  cent  of  them  are  men  who  have  had  some 
agricultural  experience. 

Mr.  SNELL.  I  appreciate  that ;  but  if  you  should  establish  one  of  those  projects 
there,  would  not  the  boys  in  northern  New  York,  for  instance,  say,  "  I  would 
rather  go  down  there  and  work  for  the  Government  for  nice  pay  than  to  work  as 
a  common  everyday  farmer  has  to  do  in  New  York." 

Serreiary  LANE.  I  should  suppose  they  would.  I  should  rather  think  that  of 
I  were  a  fellow  with  a  chance  like  that,  and  who  had  been  across  in  France, 
I  would  want  to  get  some  sort  of  farm  for  myself,  and  that  if  I  saw  an  op- 
portunity to  get  that  farm  I  would  not  work  regularly  upon  a  farm  for  wages 
for  somebody  else,  but  would  strike  out  for  myself.  *I  think  we  ought  to  give 
them  that  chance. 

Mr.  SNELL.  But  in  doing  that  you  would  cripple  the  original  farm  industry  in 
that  section  of  the  country. 

Secretary  LANE.  Coming  from  a  farming  section,  as  you  know  I  do.  because  I 
come  from  one  of  the  great  farming  sections  of  the  country,  I  know  that  at  this 
time  of  the  year  the  farmer  is  always  busy  and  always  unhappy  because  of  the 
prospect  of  shortage  of  labor.  Last  year  I  remember  distinctly,  when  the 
war  was  on,  how  utterly  hopeless  the  promise  was  that  there  would  be  a  suffi- 
cient amount  of  farm  labor  to  harvest  the  crops;  and  yet  you  in  New  York  got 
your  women  into  the  fields,  and  they  were  enthusiastic  about  it. 

Does  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  intend  to  build  these  soldiers'  homes  so 
attractive  as  that  the  wife  will  be  altogether  "  contented  "  and  pass  lightly  over 
the  fact  that  the  New  York  women  are  required  to  work  in  the  fields? 

Mr.  UAKKII  (p.  39).  Your  answer  just>  given  that  the  man  should  live  on  his 
place  practically  answers  the  question  I  intended  to  put;  that  the  man  should 
live  on  his  place,  and  if  he  had  a  little  tract  he  could  go  to  the  town.  Would 
it  be  advisable  for  us  to  put  in  this  legislation  some  provision  whereby  they 
could  form — as  they  are  doing  and  as  you  have  so  successfully  maintained  in 
the  West — an  organization  so  you  would  have  something  to  deal  with  directly 
and  would  not  have  to  deal  with  each  individual  man  where  he  had  filed  upon 
land  or  had  taken  out  his  homestead? 

Secretary  LANE.  Of  course,  we  can  do  that  now.  There  is  nothing  to  pre- 
vent the  formation  of  such  an  association.  We  want  to  keep  our  individual 
hold  upon  the  men,  but  I  think  it  would  be  wise  policy  to  provide  for  the 
organization  of  cooperative  associations. 

Mr.  FKRRIS  (  p.  41  ).  Of  course,  there  are  4,000,000  soldiers  in  the  service  of  one 
kind  and  another,  including  the  Army  and  Navy  and  all.  Has  anybody  made  a 
careful  estimate  as  to  what  percentage  of  the  4,000,000  soldiers  in  all  prob- 
ability will  desire  to  avail  themselves  of  this  law? 

Secretary  LANE.  No  one  can. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Has  anyone  made  an  estimate? 

Secretary  LANE.  No. 

Yes;  I  think  250,000  of  those  little  pamphlets  were  printed,  and  upon  the 
basis  of  that  figure  40,000  were  returned  to  us.  That  would  be  15  per  cent, 
we  will  say. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Let  us  see  if  it  would.  You  had  250,000  printed,  or  a  quarter 
of  a  million,  and  40,000  returned  as  undelivered? 

Secretary  LANK.  No;  40,000  answers  came  back. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  That  would  be  almost  one-fifth. 

Secretary  LANE.  Not  quite;  about  16  per  cent.  Of  course,  there  are  12,000 
additional  that  are  volunteer  letters  that  have  just  come  in. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Going  on  that  basis,  if  16  per  cent  made  direct  response  out  of 
a  total  queried  of  250.000,  then  it  might  be  a  rough  estimate,  with  some  degree 
of  accuracy,  to  say  that  16  per  cent  of  the  entire  4,000,000  might  make  reply 
if  they  had  an  opportunity  to  do  so. 


316  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Secretary  LANE.  I  think  that  is  perhaps  as  fair  as  anything  you  can  get. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  As  a  mathematical  proposition  that  would  be  about  640,000. 
Now,  Mr.  Secretary,  I  notice  from  reading  the  bill  that  there  is  no  limit  or 
exact  sum  fixed  which  the  homesteader  and  the  improvements  thereon  may 
cost;  in  other  words,  there  is  no  maximum. 

Secretary  LANE.  No. 

We  have  figured  about  $6,000.  We  will  probably  find  that  it  will  be  a  good 
deal  more  in  some  places  and  less  in  others. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Undoubtedly  that  would  be  true;  but  a  rough  estimate  of  it  is 
that  the  original  purchase  and  the  improvements  thereon  such  as  we  have  in 
contemplation  here  would  average  about  $6,000. 

Then,  if  our  other  estimate  had  any  value  and  this  estimate  had  any  value, 
it  would  be  640,000  soldiers  multiplied  by  $6,000  as  the  possible  sum  total  that 
we  might  expend  on  this  project ;  of  course,  all  of  us  recognizing  that  that  is 
a  rough  estimate. 

Secretary  LANE.  Yes. 

One  word  in  this  connection.  I  desire  to  present  a  few  figures  on  the  esti- 
mates of  Mr.  Ferris  and  the  Secretary.  It  seems  to  be  proposed  to  use  about 
$125,000,000  the  first  year.  And  it  is  estimated  that  this  would  improve  25,000 
farms  at  $5,000,  instead  of  at  $6,000  a  farm,  according  to  the  latest  estimate 
of  the  Secretary,  upon  the  proposition  of  working  4,000  men  per  project,  which 
must  mean  4,000  farms,  according  to  the  plan  of  having  the  soldier  work  on 
the  project,  at  even  $5,000  per  farm,  amounts  to  $20,000,000.  It  is  in  the 
record  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  proposed  to  work  at  the  start  100,000 
men,  which  would  require  the  working  of  six  projects,  and  six  projects  would 
practically  consume  $125,000,000,  mentioned  by  the  Secretary  for  the  first  year, 
with  24,000  soldiers  on  the  work. 

Mr.  Ferris  says :  "As  a  mathematical  proposition  that  would  be  about  640,000 
men,"  so  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  furnishing  labor  for  24,000  soldiers 
each  year  upon  the  six  projects  it  would  take  26  years  to  complete  the  job ; 
and  if  he  worked  100,000  each  year,  it  would  require  more  than  six  years' 
time  to  complete  the  job. 

Then,  again,  if  the  estimate  of  640,000  soldiers  applied  for  farms  at  $6,000 
per  farm,  the  Government  would  have  invested  $3,840,000,000.  In  addition 
to  this,  it  is  proposed  to  loan  each  soldier  at  least  $800,  which  would  make 
another  investment  on  the  part  of  the  Government  of  $512,000,000. 

Such  estimates  as  these,  if  anyone  ever  heard  of  them  before,  are  easily 
about  one-half  the  amount  that  will  be  required  to  carry  out  the  project,  and 
I  think  it  is  safe  to  multiply  these  amounts  by  two,  ;is  showing  the  real  amount 
of  money  that  the  Government  would  find  that  it  had  invested.  It  is 
clear  to  my  mind  that  the  Secretary  has  had  bad  advice  with  reference  to  the 
cost  of  things  in  general,  and  this  conclusion  is  reached  from  the  testimony  of 
Mr.  Ferris,  page  43:  "  Then  suppose  he  needs  a  pair  of  mules,  to  get  right  down 
to  the'  practical  side  of  this  live-stock  proposition,  which  cost  $300,  he  would 
have  to  put  up  $120  and  the  Government  $180,  which  he  thought  would  be  be- 
yond his  reach." 

Secretary  LANE.  I  doubt  very  much  if  that  is  so.  You  can  change  the  per- 
centage, of  course,  in  any  way  you  want;  but  I  believe  in  challenging  the  best 
thing  in  the  boy  and  making  him  feel  from  the  start  that  he  has  got  to  be 
thrifty. 

I  believe  it  will  look  to  the  ordinary  man  from  a  critical  examination  of  this 
whole  plan  that  the  soldier  boy  has  been  sufficiently  challenged.  While  some 
one  in  the  record — I  will  not  take  time  to  turn  to  it  now — has  stated  that,  the 
soldier  boy  was  not  "a  superman,"  I  feel  that  if  he  accepts  one  of  these  jobs 
from  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  and  goes  through  with  it  to  the  end  that 
he  will  have  proved  himself  altogether  "  a  superman." 

Going  back  a  little  to  Mr.  Ferris's  $300-mule  team :  Some  one  should  advise 
him  That  mule  teams  cost  to-day  from  $600  to  $800  per  span.  If  this  Govern- 
ment desires  to  issue  ten  billions  more  of  its  securities  in  the  form  of  bonds,  per- 
haps they  had  better  adopt  the  plan  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  If  Con- 
gressmen are  in  favor  of  cutting  down  expenses  of  this  Government  they  better 
throw  this  scheme  into  the  ash  barrel. 

If  Congress  feels  like  doing  anything  for  these  soldier  boys  that  is  at  all 
reasonable  the  Iowa  delegation  will  stand  with  the  majority  will  11  votes. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  ask  the  judge  a  question,  if 
he  has  completed? 


HOMES  FOK  SOLDIERS  317 

Judge,  will  it  bother  you  for  me  to  ask  you  some  questions  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  It  might  bother  me,  but  then  you  have  the  right  to. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I  appreciate  my  rights,  Judge,  but  out  of  fairness 
to  you  I  didn't  want  to  bother  you. 

Do  you  know  that  the  State  of  Georgia,  the  State  of  Alabama,  the 
State  of  Louisiana;,  the  State  of  Texas,  and  other  Southern  States 
have  no  representation  here,  and  that  the  North,  the  East,  and  the 
West  have  practically  all  the  representation  around  this  table? 

Mr.  BOIES.  I  noticed  that,  and  while — I  did  notice  that,  and  after 
having  read  the  proceedings  of  that  big  congress  down  there  the 
thought  came  to  me — I  didn't  know  whether  it  was  true  or  not  if 
they  were  not  purposely  left  off. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Well,  Judge,  do  you  not  know  that  the  State  of 
Iowa,  the  State  of  Michigan,  the  State  of  Pennsylvania — that  is, 
citizens  of  those  States  just  named — own  practically  all  the  cut-over 
lands  and  timbered  lands  in  the  South,  and  that  those  people  who 
live  there  own  practically  none  of  them? 

Mr.  BOIES.  That  is  my  understanding,  that  they  are  owned  by 
speculators. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Then  your  assault  on  the  South — you  mean  to  apply 
that  as  to  the  men  who  have  gone  from  the  North  and  from  your 
own  State — Iowa — the  State  of  Michigan,  and  the  State  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  not  to  us  southern  people? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Yes,  sir;  I  have  no  criticism  to  lodge  against  the 
southern  gentlemen. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Thank  you,  sir. 

Mr.  BOIES.  It  is  the  men  down  there  with  land  to  sell.  I  appre- 
ciate your  southern  gentlemen.  I  have  visited  in  the  South  once  or 
twice,  and  I  like  them. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  If  you  would  come  and  stay  a  long  time,  we  would 
make  you  a  Democrat  and  move  you  down  there.  [Laughter.] 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Judge,  you  talked  to  40  soldiers  out  there  in  your 
home  town? 

Mr.  BOIES.  No,  sir;  I  talked  to  over  40;  but  I  didn't  simply  go 
around  and  talk  to  40  soldiers — that  is,  I  don't  want  the  record  to 
show  that  I  went  around  and  talked  to  40  different  soldiers.  They 
were  at  the  meeting  gathered  there.  We  have  a  town  of  4,000,  and 
there  was  as  many  there  as  you  would  get  at  a  banquet,  and  I 
thought,  congregated  as  they  were,  hit  or  miss,  it  was  a  fair  repre- 
sentation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Were  they  residents  of  your  State  or  of  other 
States? 

Mr.  BOIES.  They  are  most  of  them  residents  of  our  State,  I  pre- 
sume. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  you  haven't  found  a  soldier  who  is  in  favor 
of  this  plan? 

Mr.  BOIES.  I  have  not  talked  with  a  soldier  who  was  in  favor  of 
this  plan. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then,  it  is  your  idea  that  this  is  a  reclamation 
project;  and  by  reclamation  project  you  mean  a  scheme  to  reclaim 
the  arid  lands  of  the  West  and  the  swamp  lands  of  the  South  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  I  do. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  I  suppose  those  soldiers  had  that  same  idea  ? 


318  HOMES  FOE   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  BOIES.  I  presume  so. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Did  you  take  the  vote  after  your  speech  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  I  didn't  say  a  word  with  reference  to  the  plan. 

Mr.  VAILE.  How  did  you  put  the  question? 

Mr.  BOIES.  I  just  simply  called  their  attention  to  the  fact  that 
there  was,  or  would  probably  be,  a  bill  in  Congress  to  give  soldiers 
some  of  the  land  in  this  country. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Swamp  land? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MATS.  You  mentioned  swamp  land? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Yes ;  I  did.  I  had  a  right  to.  It  is  within  the  truth — 
swamp  land  and  stump  land. 

Mr.  MAYS.  And  it  was  after  you  mentioned  swamp  land  that  they 
voted? 
•Mr.  BOIES.  How  is  that? 

Mr.  MAYS.  After  your  designation  of  this  land  as  swamp  land,  they 
cast  their  votes? 

Mr.  BOIES.  They  did  not  vote  until  after  I  made  the  statement. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Judge,  you  know  the  object  of  this  bill,  as  stated 
in  the  bill,  is  to  select  one  or  more  projects  in  each  of  the  several 
States  where  a  feasible  project  may  be  found;  that  this  is  not  de- 
signed solely  to  reclaim  the  arid  lands  of  the  West  and  the  swamp 
lands  of  the  South ;  that  it  is  not  designed  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  BOIES.  Who  says  so  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Secretary  of  the  Interior  and  the  bill  itself. 

Mr.  BOIES.  The  bill  itself  does  not  speak  in  that  respect. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  the  bill  says: 

Projects  shall  be  selected  with  a  view  to  developing  one  or  more  projects  in 
each  of  the  several  States  in  which  feasible  projects  may  be  found. 

Now,  Secretary  Lane  has  repeatedly  called  to  the  attention  of  Con- 
gress and  to  this  committee  the  large  areas  of  land  existing  in  the 
Northern  States,  in  the  Northeast,  in  the  North,  aside  from  the 
West,  and  it  is  specifically  stated  that  a  project  could  be  found,  or 
projects  were  found,  feasible  in  every  State  so  far,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  four  States,  one  of  those  four  being  your  own  State,  Iowa ; 
but  later  examination  may  disclose  a  project  in  your  State,  although 
I  doubt  if  there  is  a  project  in  your  State.  Your  State  is  so  fertile 
and  is  all  under  cultivation  that  there  probably  wouldn't  be  any- 
thing there. 

Mr.  BOIES.  Doesn't  that  contemplate  a  monster  scheme — mon- 
strous, I  mean — in  extent? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  was  not  the  question.  I  am  directing  my 
question  to  your  impression  of  the  bill  and  the  impression  that  your 
soldiers  had,  that  it  is  a  scheme  solely  to  reclaim  the  swamp  lands 
of  the  South  and  the  arid  lands  of  the  West.  Now,  that  theory  being 
incorrect,  that  would  not  modify  your  views  any,  would  it? 

Mr.  BOIES.  My  impression  of  the  bill  is  gained  by  an  examination 
of  the  history  that  led  up  to  the  introduction  of  this  Mondell  bill. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  Judge,  I  am  giving  you  some  of  the  history 
of  the  bill,  some  of  the  genesis  and  the  exact  language  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Interior,  who  states  that  within  50  miles  of  the  city  of 
Washington  there  are  numerous  feasible  projects.  Now,  Judge, 
your  opinion  and  the  opinion  of  these  soldiers  was  formed  because 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  319 

you  thought  this  was  a  proposition  to  reclaim  the  arid  lands  of  the 
West  and  the  swamp  lands  of  the  South;  yet  you  have  told  this 
committee  that  you  know  nothing  about  the  failure  or  the  success 
of  the  reclamation  or  the  irrigation  of  the  arid  lands  of  the  West. 

Mr.  BOIES.  Well,  I  don't  think  that  the  statement  of  the  chairman 
is  borne  out  by  what  I  said. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  Well,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  have  you  any  knowl- 
edge, Judge,  of  the  failure  or  of  the  success  of  the  irrigated  lands  in 
the  West  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Just  as  I  have  said,  only  in  a  general  way.  But,  then, 
my  knowledge  of  that  don't  affect  the  proposition  of  its  being  a 
reclamation  project,  and  I  don't  object  to  this  Government  going 
into  a  decent  reclamation  project,  I  don't  care  how  large,  when  this 
country  can  afford  it  and  the  States  in  which  it  is  located  help  to 
improve  their  own  States. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  Judge,  that  is  the  very  question.  Your  main  objec- 
tion is  that  this  is  an  extravagent  proposition  and  will  involve  the 
Government  in  the  expenditure  of  too  much  money  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Yes,  sir ;  and  that  the  soldier  boy  won't  adopt  it. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  Now.  your  plan  is  to  do  what  the  soldier  boy  wants, 
and  to  do  it  immediately ;  is  that  it  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  All  right.  Now,  you  say  that  your  plan  is  to  give  him 
six  months'  pay  at  $50  a  month. 

Mr.  BOIES.  $25  to  $50. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Make  it  $50  for  six  months.  That  would  be  $300, 
and  4,000,000  times  $300  for  six  months  makes  $7,200,000,000.  Then 
your  plan,  which  involves  economy  and  excludes  extravagance,  calls 
for  the  immediate  outlay  in  actual  money  at  this  time  of  $7.200,- 
000,000 ;  this  plan  here  calls  for  the  appropriation  at  the  present  time 
of  only  $100,000,000.  Now,  as  between  the  two  plans,  do  you  think 
yours  is  the  most  extravagant,  or  that  the  Lane  plan  is  the  most 
extravagant  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  The  bill  says  $500,000,000. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  That  is  the  authorization.  It  has  been  stated  here 
over  and  over  again  that  the  uttermost  appropriation  that  will  be 
asked  of  the  Appropriation  Committee  at  this  time  will  be  $100,- 
000,000.  This  bill  is  an  authorization  of  a  maximum  amount  to  be 
appropriated  over  a  course  of  five  years.  Now,  do  you  think,  Judge, 
in  your  judgment,  that  in  a  matter  of  comparison  between  the  two 
plans,  yours  can  be  characterized  as  reasonable,  unwasteful,  economic; 
while  the  Lane  plan  can  be  characterized  as  extravagant  and  wasteful  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  It  is  not  in  the  blood  of  the  American  people  to-day  to 
deal  economically  with  the  soldier. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  But  you  are  putting  your  argument  on  that  very  basis. 
Your  argument  calls  for  the  immediate  expenditure  of  over  $7,000,- 
000.000,  which  the  Lane  plan  will  never  approximate. 

Mr.  BOIES.  You  forget,  as  the  gentleman  sitting  next  to  me  sug- 
gested, the  pension  to  old  soldiers  goes  out  monthly.  I  thanked  him 
for  that  suggestion.  It  probably  ought  to  go  out  in  that  way  to 
these  soldiers,  and  if  you  will  take  the  figures — they  are  set  out  there — 
if  you  take  the  figures  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  the  plan  that 
is  outlined  by  his  own  language,  you  will  find  that  the  expense,  if  car- 
133319—19 21 


320  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

ried  out  according  to  his  ideas — and  he  is  given  full  authority  by  this 
bill — will  amount  to  many  billions  of  dollars. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  No ;  the  very  utmost  amount  he  can  spend  under  this 
bill  is  $500,000,000.  That  is  the  absolute  limitation. 

Mr.  BOIES.  That  is  in  the  start. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Well,  that  is  up  to  Congress. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Judge,  don't  you  realize  that  under  this  bill  the 
money  is  also  to  be  paid  back  to  the  Government? 

Mr.  ELSTON.  A  revolving  fund. 

Mr.  BOIES.  No ;  the  bill  says  it  is  not — or  Mr.  Mondell  says  in  his 
argument  that  it  is  not. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  It  is  not  revolving. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  It  is  to  be  paid  back,  isn't  it? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  with  interest. 

Mr.  BOIES.  Well,  if  I  am  at  all  right,  no  considerable  percentage  of 
these  soldiers  will  adopt  this  plan,  and  you  won't  have  any  soldiers 
to  pay  back  the  money. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Just  a  moment ;  right  on  that  point,  Judge — do  you 
not  know  that  1,578  of  your  own  citizens,  your  own  soldiers,  have 
applied  for  homesteads  under  this  plan? 

Mr.  BOIES.  I  have  read  that  statement. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Do  you  believe  that  it  is  true? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Well,  if  you  will  allow  me  to  answer  one  question  before 
you  put  another 

Mr.  JOHNSON  (interposing).  Secretary  Lane  says  it  is;  that  1,578 
men  already  have  applied  for  these  homesteads  under  the  Lane  plan. 

Mr.  BOIES.  Now,  the  only  knowledge  that  I  have  of  that  is  the  ques- 
tionnaires sent  out  by  Secretary  Lane,  and  which  I  ask  here  to  have 
incorporated  as  part  of  my  address. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  are  in  the  record.    The  secretary  put  them  in. 

Mr.  Bones.  And  I  want  the  heading  in. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  It  is  in  the  record. 

Mr.  BOIES.  That  questionnaire  didn't  amount  to  very  much  to  the 
boy  in  the  trench  or  out  in  the  fields,  or  wallowing  in  the  mud.  The 
heading  is :  "  Hey,  there ;  do  you  want  a  farm  ?  "  Of  course,  he  wanted 
a  farm  if  he  could  get  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Oh,  Judge;  that  was  not  the  idea  conveyed.  Here 
is  what  the  secretary  said : 

Does  the  Government  give  me  this  farm  for  nothing? — Answer :  No.  And  you 
wouldn't  want  the  Government  to  do  it.  The  plan  is  for  you  to  arrange  to  pay 
for  your  farm  in  small  payments  after  a  long  term  of  years,  with  interest 
charged  at  the  rate  of  4  per  cent  per  annum. 

There  was  no  lure  held  out  to  the  soldier,  no  gold  brick  held  up 
before  him  in  that  statement. 

Mr.  BOIES.  Well,  the  heading  is,  as  I  state,  isn't  it  ? 

Mr.  VAILE.  Judge,  Iowa  is  now  a  very  highly  developed  State  agri- 
culturally, isn't  it? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Yes;  I  think  it  is  the  best  agricultural  State  in  the 
Union.  Land  is  selling  there  from  $350  to  $550  an  acre. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Eight  there,  Judge ;  is  there  much  show  for  a  man  with- 
out some  means  to  get  one  of  those  farms  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  To  get  one.of  them  ? 

Mr.  MAYS.  Yes. 

Mr.  BOIES.  Yes. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  321 

Mr.  MAYS.  How  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  He  must,  perhaps,  to-day  be  a  little  more  than  an  ordi- 
nary man. 

Mr.  MAYS.  We  are  dealing  with  ordinary  men. 

Mr.  BOIES.  But  if  he  has  the  money  that  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  contemplates  that  he  shall  have  before  he  can  go  on  one  of 
these  improved  farms,  he  can  get  a  piece  of  land  there  on  a  small 
payment  down  or  he  would  have  enough  to  go  on  to  a  farm  and  rent ; 
and  I  will  tell  you  that  the  renter  to-day  can  pay  for  a  piece  of  land 
from  three  to  five  hundred  dollars  an  acre  at  these  prices,  and  some  of 
them  are  doing  it. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Now,  Judge,  there  is  very  little  land  in  Iowa  that  needs 
to  be  irrigated  or  drained  or  cleared  of  stumps  or  otherwise  re- 
claimed. 

Mr.  BOIES.  It  is  stated  that  97  per  cent  of  it  is  tillable. 

Mr.  VAILE.  It  is  one  of  the  States  referred  to  by  Secretary  Lane 
as  not  now  being  reported  as  having  any  available  land  for  this 
project? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Yes. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Well,  now,  Judge,  of  course  we  all  recognize  the  justice 
of  your  remark  a  few  minutes  ago,  that  all  of  us,  no  matter  how  fair 
we  are,  are  somewhat  affected  by  our  own  selfish  interests.  You 
would  hardly  expect  the  people  of  Iowa  to  be  entirely  exempt  from 
that  vice  which  is  common  to  us  all,  would  you  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  No,  sir.  I  say  that  mankind  is  a  little  selfish,  and  I 
don't  wish  to  be  understood  as  putting  myself  above  the  ordinary 
man. 

Mr.  VAILE.  We  had  a  gentleman  here  the  other  day — he  is  here 
right  now — who  objected  to  this  plan  because  he  thought  it  was  mak- 
ing competition  with  the  farmer.  Isn't  it  very  possible,  Judge,  that 
the  people  of  Iowa  regard  this  as  competition  with  them,  with  their 
lands  already  developed? 

Mr.  BOIES.  No,  sir;  I  don't  care  if  it  is  competition.  Every  man 
that  wants  to  farm  and  can  find  a  piece  of  land  to  farm,  or  go  into 
any  other  business  under  the  Government,  ought  to  be  privileged  to 
do  so. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Now,  these  soldiers  that  you  talked  to  were  men  who 
were  coming  home  to  be  demobilized  or  had  been  discharged  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  They  had  been  discharged. 

Mr.  VAILE.  So,  most  of  them  were  Iowa  soldiers  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Yes.    I  dare  say  most  of  them  were  Iowa  soldiers. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Living  on  or  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  richest  lands 
in  the  world? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Well,  most  of  them  live  in  town  and  work  at  various 
propositions. 

Mr.  VAILE.  They  were  not  the  class  of  men,  mostly,  who  would 
care — who  would  have  an  inducement  to  move  to  some  other  new 
country,  were  they  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Well,  there  are  a  good  many  of  them  there  that  are 
broke. 

Mr.  VAILE.  At  all  events,  their  surroundings  were  calculated  to 
encourage  a  man  and  assist  a  man  to  become  wealthy,  weren't  they  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Well,  if  a  boy  was  straight  and  industrious,  he  would 
be  assisted  by  most  anybody  that  had  the  money  to  help  him  along. 


322  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  VAILE.  And  furthermore,  they  didn't  have  before  their  eyes 
the  sight  of  large  tracts  which  could  be  readily  developed  by  their 
own  efforts? 

Mr.  BOIES.  No;  but  if  you  read  this  whole  record  and  got  into 
what  the  Secretary  says  about  this  land  down  South,  and  one  place 
where  the  timbermen  had  cleared  off  200  acres  of  swamp  land — 

The  CHAIRMAN  (interposing).  Judge,  get  away  from  the  South 
a  little  while.  This  is  not  solely  a  southern  proposition. 

Mr.  VAILE.  I  want  to  refer  to  one  other  question. 

Mr.  BOIES.  But  most  of  the  record  evidence  backing  up  this  bill 
•comes  from  the  South. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Oh,  no ;  that  is  not  true,  Judge. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Judge,  if  this  bill  fails  it  will  fail  by  reason  of  the 
opposition  of  the  South. 

Mr.  BOIES.  I  am  not  talking  about  the  southern  man ;  I  am  agree- 
ing with  that  man,  I  don't  care  where  the  man  comes  from,  if  he 
comes  from  my  own  town  or  my  home — 

Mr.  JOHNSON  (interposing).  So  far  as  I  know,  I  am  -the  only 
member  of  our  delegation  that  is  in  favor  of  this  bill. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  That  is  because  you  are  posted  on  its  merits. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I  have  studied  it. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Isn't  it  a  fact,  Judge,  that  our  point  of  view,  as  af- 
fected by  self-interest,  changes  from  time  to  time  as  conditions 
affecting  our  self-interest  vary  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  I  think  so ;  but  there  isn't  anything  in  my  position  that 
is  affected  by  my  self-interest. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Isn't  it  a  fact,  Judge,  that  Iowa  itself  was  settled  very 
largely  under  the  provisions  of  various  soldier  settlement  acts,  espe- 
cially by  veterans  of  the  Civil  War,  who  came  out  there  under  the 
liberal  policy  of  the  Government — came  out  there  and  settled  those 
lands,  the  richest  in  the  world  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Not  all  through  Iowa ;  but  in  my  section  of  the  State, 
where  I  have  lived  for  38  years,  that  is  true.  I  don't  mean  to  say 
that  is  generally  so,  but  a  great  many  soldiers  took  up  homesteads 
there. 

Mr.  VAILE.  So  the  interest,  now  that  it  is  fully  developed,  would 
be  different  from  that  which  existed  immediately 'following  the  Civil 
War. 

Mr.  BOIES.  Yes ;  because  if  these  boys  could  go  and  homestead  any 
such  land  as  that  now  we  would  all  want  them  to  homestead  it,  and 
they  would  be  desirous  of  homesteading  it. 

Mr.  VAILE.  If  they  had  a  chance  to  homestead  that  kind  of  land 
anywhere  they  ought  to  be  allowed  to  do  it,  shouldn't  they  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Yes ;  but  the  record  shows  there  isn't  any  such  land  as 
that  to  homestead. 

Mr.  VAILE.  That  is  a  question. 

Mr.  BOIES.  And  nothing  to  give  them  a  farm  until  the  Government 
takes  hold  of  it  and  reclaims  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Just  a  moment  there,  so  that  we  may  not  get  a  mis- 
apprehension of  that.  When  Iowa  was  opened  for  settlement,  it  was 
opened  for  everybody,  the  soldier  and  the  man  who  was  not  a  soldier. 
Isn't  that  right? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Every  citizen  of  the  United  States  possessing  the  quali- 
fications of  a  homesteader  had  that  right. 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIELS.  323 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  the  only  advantage  that  the  soldier  got  that  went 
to  Iowa  was  that  he  was  allowed  to  get  a  patent  in  a  shorter  space  of 
time  than  the  man  who  had  not  been  in  the  service? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  he  got  no  other  advantage.    Isn't  that  true  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Not  that  I  recall. 

Mr.  RAKER.  So,  therefore,  it  shows  that  the  benefits  we  are  talking 
about  to  the  soldier,  soldiers'  scrip,  so  far  as  it  applies  to  Iowa,  is  not 
true.  The  soldier  did  not  sell  his  scrip,  but  he  went  out  and  located 
himself  and  made  a  farm. 

Mr.  BOIES.  Well,  I  don't  think  the  Iowa  soldier  homesteader  had 
any  scrip  to  sell. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then  he  did  become  a  farmer  himself? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Certainly. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now  just  one  other  question.  You  have  spoken  in 
glowing  terms  of  Iowa. 

Mr.  BOIES.  The  questions  pulled  that  out  of  me.  I  didn't  intend  to 
sav  that. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  You  are  not  going  to  refer  to  California  in  that  con- 
nection, are  you,  Judge? 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  have  a  question  that  will  elicit  a  good  answer.  Let 
me  repeat  what  I  said — I  want  to  make  it  short — you  have  spoken  in 
glowing  terms  of  Iowa,  the  men  working  there,  and  the  value  of  the 
land,  etc.,  now  why  is  it  that  60,000  of  your  citizens  have  gone  to  one 
county  in  California  alone  within  the  last  10  years? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Because  they  have  grown  rich,  and  you  have  some  nice 
sky  and  flowers  out  there,  and  men  who  want  to  take  their  money 
away  from  them.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  Is  that  satisfactory,  Judge.     [Laughter.] 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now  there  are  just  a  few  matters  that  I  want  to  ask,  if 
I  may  have  the  privilege,  and  then  I  will  not  interrupt  anybody  else. 
It  has  been  stated  here  inferentially  that  this  committee  was  not  rep- 
resentative. Now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  we  have  two  southern  men 
on  the  committee,  and  you  don't  expect  to  present  here  the  fact  that 
because  the  committee  did  not  come  from  certain  States  it  would 
affect  their  attitude  in  hearings  on  this  bill,  and  their  judgment  in  re- 
porting it  out,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Not  at  all,  and  I  tried  to  fortify  the  record  so  that  no- 
man  could  go  out  of  here  and  say  that  I  did. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Exactly.  Of  course,  there  are  committees  of  the 
House  on  which  for  years  there  has  been  no  representative  from  the 
West,  the  Intermountain  States,  or  the  Pacific  coast,  and  it  is  still 
true.  They  can't  get  on. 

Now,  Judge,  in  your  presentation  here  you  are  trying  to  convey 
to  the  committee  the  idea  that  you  are  opposed  to  this  bill,  but  sup- 
pose it  should  be  workable  and  part  of  our  soldiers  were  given  an 
opportunity  to  get  a  home  at  a  reasonable  price  and  pay  for  it 
eventually,  you  would  be  in  favor  of  such  legislation,  wouldn't  you? 

Mr.  BOIES.  You  mean  the  soldier  will  pay  for  it  eventually? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes,  that  is  what  this  bill  provides. 

Mr.  BOIES.  Yes,  sir ;  if  there  is  any  considerable  number  of  soldiers 
who  want  to  adopt  this  plan,  I  would  be  willing  that  it  go  through, 
and  if  it  could  be  ascertained  just  how  many,  so  that  it  might  also 


324  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

be  ascertained  what  sum  of  money  would  be  required  to  locate  those 
soldiers  so,  as  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  says,  their  wives  would 
be  contented — a  nice  place  to  live — I  would  agree  to  that,  too. 

Mr.  MAYS.  You  estimated  awhile  ago  there  would  be  3  per  cent. 
How  many  would  that  make  altogether? 

Mr.  BOIES.  That  would  make  about  240,000. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Do  you  know  how  many  this  bill  would  care  for — its 
provisions  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  About  640,000. 

Mr.  MAYS.  I  hardly  think  so. 

Mr.  BOIES.  The  provisions  of  this  $500,000,000  ? 

Mr.  MAYS.  Yes. 

Mr.  BOIES.  Why,  no;  that  would  provide  for  about  24,000  times 
six. 

Mr.  MAYS.  So  that  3  per  cent  of  the  soldiers,  if  your  estimate  is 
correct,  would  occupy  all  the  lands  made  available  under  this  bill, 
wouldn't  they  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Yes,  I  think  it  would,  and  I  think  before  you  got 
through  with  that  you  would  have  an  awful  debt  on  hand. 

Mr.  MAYS.  So,  if  3  per  cent  of  the  soldiers  would  desire  to  take 
advantage  of  this  bill,  you  would  be  for  it  to  that  extent,  would 
you? 

Mr.  BOIES.  If  it  can  be  shown  to  me  what  it  is  going  to  cost,  and 
that  they  will  furnish  something  that  the  soldier — that  is  of  benefit 
to  the  soldier. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Well,  a  home  is  usually  of  some  benefit,  isn't  it? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Yes;  but  how  are  you  going  to  furnish  the  soldier  a 
home  who  hasn't  got  a  cent,  as  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  says, 
hasn't  got  enough  money  to  buy  a  shack — how  is  he  going  to  pay 
the  four  or  five  hundred  dollars  cash  down,  and  then  after  the  Gov- 
ernment loans  him  $800,  put  in  $400  himself  ? 

Mr.  MAYS.  Well,  there  are  provisions  in  this  bill  for  payment  for 
work  that  he  may  do  to  help  out  such  a  soldier  as  you  mention. 

Mr.  BOIES  Yes ;  but  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  proposes  that  the 
Government  shall  go  on  and  prepare  this  farm  and  build  the  houses 
and  put  the  crop  in. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Oh,  no ;  it  doesn't  go  that  far. 

Mr.  BOIES.  There  is  a  record  of  that — 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No;  there  is  no  provision  for  putting  in  a  crop. 

Mr.  BOIES.  I  may  be  mistaken  as  to  the  Secretary  saying  that,  but 
if  he  didn't,  some  other  man  did  who  was  at  the  meeting  with  him. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  was  said,  probably,  at  this  convention  you 
refer  to,  but  it  is  not  in  the  bill. 

Mr.  BOIES.  But  he  has  talked  about  the  bathtub  in  the  house  and 
about  good  roads  and  about  railroads  being  built  into  these  projects 
and  that  it  ought  to  be  done  quickly.  Xow,  who  is  going  to  build 
railroads  to-day?  The  Railroad  Administration  or  the  bankrupt 
railroads? 

Mr.  BAER.  The  railroads  in  Iowa  when  they  found  that  that  land 
was  good  for  farming — a  lot  of  railroads  went  in  there. 

Mr.  BOIES.  They  didn't  build  them  for  a  great  many  years,  either. 
I  want  to  know  who  is  going  to  build  railroads  quickly". 

Mr.  BAER.  I  think  the  trouble  is,  Judge,  you  can't  adjust  your  mind 
to  50  years  ago,  because  you  were  a  pretty  young  man  when  our 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  325 

fathers  went  out  to  get  homesteads.  There  was  lots  of  free  land 
then,  but  these  soldiers  are  not  in  the  same  condition.  They  haven't 
any  land. 

Mr.  BOIES.  I  was  born  on  a  homestead,  65  miles  west  of  Chicago, 
and  my  people  cheated  me  out  of  fame  because  they  moved  out  of 
the  log  house  on  January  1  and  I  was  born  in  the  new  house  on 
January  3. 

Mr.  BAER.  I  was  born  in  a  log  house  100  miles  north  of  Chicago 
and  they  didn't  cheat  me. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  White  wants  to  ask  a  question,  Judge. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Do  you  think  that  the  competition  that  would  result 
from  the  products  of  those  farms  that  might  be  established  through 
the  operation  of  this  bill  would  have  any  effect  whatever  upon  the 
price  of  agricultural  products? 

Mr.  BOIES.  I  don't  know  whether  it  would  have  any  effect  upon 
the  agricultural  products  of  the  country,  and  it  would  not  have,  in 
mJ  judgment,  a  bad  effect  upon  the  condition  of  the  people  and  the 
cost  of  living.  You  can't  get  too  much  competition  in  the  world  for 
the  good  of  mankind  in  the  way  of  raising  foodstuffs. 

Mr.  WHITE.  You  don't  believe,  do  you,  that  there  is  any  prejudice 
whatever  in  the  minds  of  the  farmers  of  your  State  toward  this 
proposition  for  that  particular  reason,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  I  know  there  is  not. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  am  glad  to  hear  that. 

Mr.  Bonos.  I  happen  to  own  a  little  land  in  Iowa,  and  I  did  work 
some  of  it  myself  along  with  my  boy  before  he  enlisted,  but  when  he 
came  back  he  didn't  want  to  go  back  to  the  farm.  _  He  went  to  selling 
tractor  engines.  I  don't  care  how  much  competition  you  get  into  the 
farming  business. 

Mr.  WHITE.  You  don't  believe  they  care,  either? 

Mr.  BOIES.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Judge,  in  your  opening  statement,  you  intimated  very 
strongly  that  the  people  most  interested  in  this  legislation  were  the 
land  owners,  and  included  the  owners  of  swamp  lands  and  the  owners 
of  arid  lands  in  the  West.  Do  you  not  know  that  practically  all  of 
the  arid  lands  in  the  West  that  would  be  reclaimed  are  in  the  public 
domain  and  not  in  private  ownership  at  all? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Secretary  Lane  says  that  the  greater  part  of  the  public 
lands  are  on  top  of  the  Rocky  Mountains. 

Mr.  SMITH.  That  may  be  true,  but  there  are  great  quantities  of 
arid  lands  that  could  be  reclaimed  that  are  still  in  the  public  domain 
and  are  useless  until  they  are  reclaimed.  You  are  mistaken  when 
you  assume  that  we  are  interested  in  this  bill  because  somebody  has 
got  some  land  to  sell  out  there.  The  land  we  would  reclaim  is  in  the 
public  domain. 

Mr.  BOIES.  Well,  I  have  lived  in  the  West  all  of  my  life,  and  I 
know  how  the  land  business  is  transacted. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Do  you  know  how  it  has  been  conducted  from  a  gov- 
ernmental standpoint? 

Mr.  BOIES.  Not  from  the  governmental  standpoint,  but  I  know  I 
have  been  in  the  Rocky  Mountains,  too. 

Mr.  SMITH.  You  probably  rode  through  in  a  Pullman  car. 


326  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  BOIES.  Well,  I  have  walked  around  there. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Now,  you  say  the  land  in  Iowa  is  worth  from  $300  to 
$500  an  acre  on  the  average  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  SMITH.  $250  an  acre  on  the  average?  What  chance  has  a 
poor  young  man  in  Iowa  to  get  a  foothold  on  the  soil  there?  This 
legislation  is  intended  to  give  the  Iowa  boys  a  chance  to  get  a  home 
in  some  other  section  of  the  country;  for  instance,  out  in  our  country 
we  have  probably  10  or  15  per  cent  of  the  people  who  came  from 
your  State. 

Mr.  BOIES.  You  are  as  competent  to  judge  of  that  as  I  am,  and  I 
don't — I  am  not  arguing  against  this  land,  the  Government  land, 
being  reclaimed,  and  I  am  not  arguing  against  the  man  who  owns  the 
swamp  lands  of  the  South  or  the  stump  land  on  the  sandy  districts 
of  the  North  putting  their  land  upon  the  market  if  they  can,  and  I 
wouldn't  be  against  Government  aid  in  helping  the  States  to  get 
their  lands  under  cultivation,  but  I  don't  want  it  done  quickly,  as 
they  are  asking  for  at  this  time,  because  of  the  $24,000,000,000  of 
debts  that  we  know  something  about,  and  more  coming  in  that  we 
don't  know  anything  about. 

Mr.  SMITH.  If  we  made  these  young  men  self-sustaining  by  putting 
them  on  farms,  they  would  help  to  pay  this  enormous  debt. 

Mr.  BOIES.  You  are  not  going  to  get  these  young  men  on  the  farms, 
according  to  this  plan  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior — you  are  not 
going  to  get  them  to  work  under  two  or  three  years. 

Mr.  i  SMITH.  We  expect  to  give  them  work  constructing  these 
projects  as  soon  as  the  bill  is  passed. 

Mr.  BOIES.  You  will  get  about  24,000  of  them  the  first  year,  and  the 
balance  of  the  100,000  would  be  waiting  for  four  years  before  the 
lats  twenty- four  or  twenty-five  thousand  would  get  a  chance  to  go 
on  the  land. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Judge,  just  one  question.  Do  you  realize,  when 
you  speak  of  the  land  schemes  and  the  land  sales  that  will  be  put 
over  upon  the  Government — do  you  realize  the  safeguards  under  this 
bill  and  the  legislative  situation  surrounding  the  bill ;  that  this  bill  is 
a  bill  solely  for  an  authorization ;  it  does  not  appropriate  any  money, 
and  before  the  money  can  be  made  available  the  Appropriations 
Committee  of  the  House  and  yourself  will  have  an  opportunity  to 
pass  upon  the  specific  projects"  that  are  to  be  developed;  that  it  is 
contemplated  that  the  first  year  we  can  spend  about  $75,000,000;  that 
whatever  service  has  this  in  charge,  if  under  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  he  will  not  have  carte  blanche  to  spend  that  money,  but  he 
has  got  to  put  his  cards  upon  the  table  before  the  Appropriations 
Committee,  and  they  will  report  to  the  House  an  item  in  the  appro- 
priation bill,  and  the  project  will  be  disclosed  and  the  scheme  will  be 
disclosed  upon  which  the  $75,000,000  is  to  be  expended. 

Mr.  BOIES.  Where  does  the  evidence  of  that  sort  of  a  plan  appear  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  the  requirement  of  the  rules  of  the  House. 

Mr.  BOIES.  This  is  turned  over  absolutely  under  this  bill — the 
$500,000,000? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes ;  that  appears  in  the  last  section,  and  I  know 
a  great  many  new  Members — and  I  was  confused  myself  on  the  dif- 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  327 

ference  between  an  authorization  and  an  appropriation  for  several 
years — "  That  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  into  effect  the  provisions 
of  this  act  the  sum  of  $500,000,000  is  hereby  authorized  to  be  appro- 
priated." Now,  that  is  an  authorization.  This  committee  can  not 
make  an  appropriation.  The  Appropriations  Committee  is  not  a 
legislative  committee.  We  give  them  the  authorization  of  law,  the 
statute  which  enables  them  to  make  the  appropriation;  then  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  has  to  come  before  the  committee,  the  Ap- 
propriations Committee,  as  he  does  to-day  in  the  matter  of  reclama- 
tion expenditures,  and  disclose  to  the  committee  and  be  subjected  to  a 
cross-examination  before  the  Appropriations  Committee  will  approve 
the  item.  Then  that  is  reported  to  the  House,  and  we  vote  on  it  a 
second  time.  That  is  the  procedure,  and  that  is  the  safeguard  sur- 
rounding a  matter  of  this  kind. 

Mr.  BOIES.  I  tell  you  that  when  the  Government  goes  out  to  buy 
this  land  spoken  of  for  this  purpose  they  are  more  liable  than  other- 
wise to  get  cheated.  The  Government  is  not  a  good  land  agent,  and 
it  is  not  a  good  buyer  generally. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Government  can't  buy  this  land,  Judge,  ex- 
cept as  directed  by  the  Appropriations  Committee,  presided  over  by 
the  gentleman  from  your  own  State,  Mr.  Good. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  And  it  is  also  true,  Judge,  that  there  would 
be  a  great  deal  of  land  that  would  be  given  absolutely,  either  by  the 
State  or  by  the  owner,  to  the  Federal  Government  for  this  purpose. 

Mr.  BOIES.  Secretary  Lane  says  he  don't  believe  that  is1  true.  He 
says  about  the  only  thing  they  will  get  from  the  States  is  a  little 
advice — maybe  some  help  after  the  project  is  completed. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  there  is  a  captain 
in  the  Army  here.  I  promised  him  that  he  could  go  on,  so  that  he 
could  leave  to  catch  a  train. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  I  would  like  to  ask  one  question:  Do  you  believe 
that  the  $300  that  you  have  suggested  be  given  to  the  soldiers  in 
cash  would  do  the  average  soldier  more  good  than  if  a  feasible 
scheme  could  be  worked  out  to  make  him  the  proprietor  of  a  farm  ? 

Mr.  BOIES.  If  a  feasible  scheme  could  be  worked  out  so  as  to  give 
the  soldier  boy  a  farm,  it  ought  to  be  done,  when  this  Government 
can  afford  it. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Well,  now,  Judge,  one  more  question.  Don't  you 
know  that  this  committee  is  trying  to  work  out  a  feasible  scheme, 
with  the  assistance  of  the  experts  of  this  Government  that  are  well 
informed  as  to  what  schemes  are  possible? 

Mr.  BOIES.  I  haven't  any  knowledge  of  what  this  committee  is 
trying  to  do.  All  the  knowledge  I  have  is  what  Secretary  Lane  is 
trying  to  do,  with  the  assistance  of  men  who  have  land  to  sell. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Judge,  just  one  more  question :  Do  you  feel  that 
you  have  fairly  canvassed  this  matter  among  the  soldiers  to  deter- 
mine \vhether  or  not  they  want  it? 

Mr.  BOIES.  I  think  I  have  canvassed  it  more  thoroughly  than  any 
other  man,  outside  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  who  has  made 
any  report  upon  the  question,  that  1  know  anything  about. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  all. 


328  HOMES  FOK  SOLDIERS. 

STATEMENT  OF  CAPT.  ELLIS  BASHURE,  UNITED  STATES  ARMY. 

Capt.  BASHURE.  I  am  at  present  in  the  financial  section  of  the 
Army.  I  will  not  take  up  very  much  of  your  time,  gentlemen.  The 
reason  that  I  am  very  much  interested  in  this  hearings  that  when  the 
little  questionnaire  came  out  from  the  War  Department  I  called  our 
little  garrison  together — 700  men — read  the  questionnaire  to  them, 
explained  everything  that  they  wanted  explained,  and  we  "found  that 
87  per  cent  of  our  garrison  of  700  men  wanted  Government  farms. 
We  explained  to  them  that  they  were  not  going  to  be  given  anything; 
that  they  would  have  to  pay  for  everything  they  got;  that  it  was  not 
a  gratuity  in  any  sense  of  the  word. 

Our  men  were  composed  10  per  cent  from  South  Carolina ;  three- 
quarters,  in  equal  proportions  from  the  States  of  West  Virginia, 
Kentucky,  and  Indiana.  The  remaining  15  per  cent  were  scattered, 
some  Mississippians,  some  Californians,  and  they  were  scattered  gen- 
erally all  over  the  country.  Three-quarters  of  them,  however,  were 
from  the  middle  section  ot  the  country,  either  the  North  or  the  middle 
section. 

I  do  not  think,  from  my  own  observation,  from  the  questions  that 
I  put  to  these  men,  that  they  want  a  gratuity.  I  think  they  want 
farms.  They  are  thrown  now  on  their  own  resources.  We  jerked 
them  out  of  good  jobs  and  told  them  to  serve  their  country,  and  they 
did  it;  and  we  are  throwing  them  back  Avith  no  jobs,  with  nothing  to 
do.  My  folks  are  in  California  now,  and  they  tell  me  there  are  a  lot 
of  soldiers,  unemployed  men,  in  Los  Angeles.  I  think  Judge  Raker 
will  bear  me  out  in  that.  There  are  a  lot  more  in  New  Orleans,  a 
lot  more  in  Atlanta,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  something  should  be 
done  as  soon  as  possible ;  and  it  seems  to  me,  too,  that  the  only  feasible 
method  is  the  Lane  method. 

That  is  about  all  I  have  to  say. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  talked  to  these  men  personally.  Cap- 
tain? 

Capt.  BASHURE.  I  talked  to  them  personally.  The  questionnaires 
were  distributed  and  after  four  days  spent  in  interviews  with  them, 
the  matter  was  brought  to  a  straw  vote  by  receiving  these  cards  from 
them,  for  their  expression  of  opinion  as  to  whether  they  wanted  a 
farm  or  did  not  want  a  farm.  Eighty-seven  per  cent  of  our  garrison 
of  700  men  wanted  a  Government  farm  on  those  terms. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  thoroughly  understood  that  this  was  not  a 
gratuity  ? 

Capt.  BASHURE.  Absolutely. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Or  an  absolute  bounty  or  charity? 

Capt.  BASHURE.  Yes,  sir.  This  one  thing  was  brought  out  very 
forcibly  to  me.  A  great  many  of  these  men  were  taxpayers  and  they 
objected  to  a  gratuity,  because  they  realized  that  they  would  only  be 
taking  out  of  one  pocket  to  put  into  another. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  long  ago  was  it  that  you  canvassed  this 
matter? 

Capt.  BASHURE.  That  was  the  time  this  questionnaire  came  out. 
That  was,  I  should  say,  February  or  March  of  this  year. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  have  you  had  any  general  talk  with  them  or 
canvass  since  that  time? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  329 

Capt.  BASHURE.  Not  since  that  time;  no. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  what  capacity  are  you  acting  now  ? 

Capt,  BASHURE.  At  present  I  am  attached  to  the  Finance  Section 
of  the  Army. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Were  you  a  demobilizing  officer? 

Capt.  BASHURE.  I  was  demobilizing  officer  at  the  remount  station, 
Camp  Shelby. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  have  any  such  experience  as  Judge  Boies 
had? 

Capt.  BASHURE.  No;  I  did  not. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  did  not  find  anything  like  the  adverse  senti- 
ment that  he  found  ? 

Capt.  BASHURE.  I  found  no  adverse  sentiment  at  all.  I  found  some 
men  that  did  not  care  for  farms,  because  they  were  city  men  and  did 
not  think  they  had  the  necessary  training  to  become  farmers.  But 
there  was  no  one  opposed  to  it  at  all,  so  far  as  I  could  find  out. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  any  members  of  the  committee  desire  to  ask 
the  captain  any  questions? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  would  like  to  ask,  Captain,  what  is  your  native 
State? 

Capt.  BASHURE.  Virginia,  by  parentage ;  California,  by  education ; 
and  Mississippi  by  citizenship. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  And  how  many  years — how  much  of  your  time  have 
you  spent,  in  California  and  how  much  in  Mississippi  ? 

Capt.  BASHURE.  I  have  been  in  Mississippi  a  year  and  four  months. 
I  came  to  California  immediately  after  my  birth  in  Virginia.  I  am 
now  38  years  old,  so  I  have  spent  practically  36  years  in  California, 
in  central  and  southern  California. 

Mr.  VAILE.  As  demobilizing  officer  did  you  have  any  connection 
whatever  with  the  Reclamation  Service? 

Capt.  BASHURE.  Not  in  the  least. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Merely  and  entirely  military? 

Capt.  BASHURE.  Entirely  military ;  no  feeling  one  way  or  the  other. 

Mr.  VAILE.  What  are  the  duties  of  the  demobilizing  officer  ? 

Capt.  BASHURE.  Simply  to  pay  off  the  men,  prepare  their  records, 
and  send  them  in.  I  was  acting  as  adjutant  at  the  same  time.  In  other 
words,  I  was  running  the  office  of  the  remount  division. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Did  you  have  any  cooperation  with  such  agencies  as  the 
Red  Cross  in  regard  to  placing  men  or  seeing  where  they  could  be 
placed  after  they  got  out  of  the  service  ? 

Capt.  BASHURE.  We  had  a  representative  of  the  United  States  Em- 
ployment Service  call  on  us  frequently.  We  were  in  close  cooperation 
with  them,  and  we  had  the  local  establishment  of  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.,  but 
the  principal  work  was  with  the  Government  Employment  Service. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Your  putting  this  questionnaire  to  these  men,  or  inter- 
rogating them  about  it,  was  the  result  of  your  previous  activities  in  see- 
ing where  men  could  be  placed  in  emplo^yment? 

Capt,  BASHURE.  That  was  the  point.  I  didn't  want  to  turn  my  men 
out  without  any  place  to  go,  because  I  realized  that  it  would  probably 
lead  to  crime  of  some  sort  if  they  were  thrown  out  with  nothing  to 
do  and  no  place  to  make  a  livelihood. 

Mr.  VAILE.  And  that  work  was  undertaken  by  you  on  your  own 
initiative  ? 


330  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

Capt.  BASHTJRE.  In  one  way.  yes:  as  part  of  my  duties  as  adjutant. 
Mr.  VAILE.  You  had  general  instructions  from  The  Adjutant  Gen- 
eral's Office  to  be  on  the  lookout  for  places  to  place  these  men? 

Capt.  BASHURE.  Xo;  I  can't  say  that  I  did.  I  received  these  ques- 
tionnaires and  asked  for  an  expression  of  opinion  without  prejudice 
from  the  men  either  one  way  or  the  other.  I  explained  what  the  situa- 
tion was,  and  I  asked,  in  view  of  that  explanation,  what  they  wanted 
to  do. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Do  you  happen  to  know,  Captain,  whether  there  was 
any  general  attempt  by  the  military  authorities  to  interrogate  men 
in  the  Army  as  to  their 'feeling  in  regard  to  this  project? 

Capt.  BASHURE.  I  only  know  as  to  my  own  garrison.  I  don't  even 
know  as  to  Camp  Shelby,  just  below  us.  The  remount  is  a  separate 
post. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  What  proportion  of  the  soldiers.  Captain, 
that  you  interrogated  had  been  overseas  ? 

Capt.  BASHURE.  Our  men,  none  of  them,  had  been  overseas.  They 
were  all  in  the  remount  service.  They  were  men  put  into  the  remount 
service  because  they  had  had  clerical  training,  and  some  percentage 
of  them — I  don't  know  what  percentage  now — were  farmer  boys,  and 
some  were  veterinarians.  They  were  men  skilled  in  the  care  of  horses, 
P.  great  many  of  them. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Most  of  them  were  recruits,  I  assume,  from 
the  agricultural  districts? 

Capt.  BASHURE.  Yes;  three-fourths  of  the  entire  garrison  of  700 
men  were  drawn  from  Indiana,  Kentucky,  and  West  Virginia.  10 
per  cent  from  South  Carolina,  and  the  balance  were  scattering. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  was  a  voluntary  canvass  on  your  part? 

Capt.  BASHURE.  Absolutely  voluntary.  They  were  sent  the  ques- 
tionnaire and  I  took  it  upon  myself  to  see  just  how  the  men  stood. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  further  questions,  gentlemen  ( 

Mr.  RAKER.  Just  for  the  sake  of  information,  how  did  you  get 
your  questionnaires,  Captain? 

Capt.  BASHURE.  They  were  sent  us  through  the  War  Department. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  War  Department  sent  you  down  a  whole 
bundle  of  them? 

Capt,  BASHURE.  A  whole  bundle  of  them;  yes.  We  were  told  to 
distribute  them  to  the  men. 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  purpose  of  that  was  to  get  an  idea  from  the  boys 
as  to  what  they  would  like  to  do  as  soon  as  they  got  out  of  the  Army  ? 

Capt.  BASHURE.  That  was  the  point  exactly. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  It  was  the  policy  of  the  War  Department  to 
try  to  place  men  as  they  were  demobilized  in  some  useful  occupation 
as  quickly  as  possible?  That  is  the  general  policy  of  the  War  De- 
partment ? 

Capt.  BASHURE.  Yes;  that  is  the  idea.  Of  course,  that  was  entirely 
independent  of  this,  because  they  realized  that  it  would  take  some 
time  to  put  this  into  operation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  thank  you  very  much,  Captain. 

Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  it  is  evident  that  we  can  not  complete 
to-day.  Mr.  Drane  wants  to  go  on  and  we  still  have  Director  Davis, 
and  Mr.  Atkeson  tells  me  that  it  would  be  just  as  convenient  for  him 
to  come  Monday.  What  is  the  further  wish  of  the  Committee  about 
sitting  longer? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  331 

Mr.  RAKER.  Can't  we  take  a  recess  until  Monday  at  10  o'clock? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Without  objection,  we  will  take  a  recess  until 
Monday  morning  at  10  o'clock. 

(Whereupon,  at  1  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  committee  adjourned  until 
10  o'clock  a.  m.,  Monday,  June  9,  1919.) 


HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 
COMMITTEE  ON  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS, 

Monday,  June  9, 1919. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Nicholas  J.  Sinnott 
(chairman)  presiding. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  E.  PHILIP  ROSENTHAL,  OF  PORTLAND,  OREG., 
REPRESENTING  THE  HUMAN  WELFARE  ASSOCIATION. 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  believe  I  have  something  very  important  to 
tell  you.  I  have  been  working  on  this  proposition  for  30  years,  and 
I  have  come  here  especially  from  Washington  and  Oregon  to  lay 
before  you  this  proposition.  This  is  a  proposition  that  has  been 
indorsed  by  the  Sixty-third  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Church, 
by  the  Parent  Teachers'  Association,  and  by  the  State  Federation  of 
Labor.  I  have  here  a  proposition  that  is  far  superior,  aye,  ten  thou- 
sand times  superior,  to  the  one  you  have  before  you.  This  is  a  propo- 
sition that  will  benefit  all  of  the  soldiers  and  all  of  the  people,  and 
the  proposition  is  one  that  is  very  vital.  Xow.  I  have  something 
important  to  say  to  you,  and  I  want  to  take  the  time  to  say  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Can  you  complete  your  statement  in  15  minutes? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  If  you  decide  at  the  end  of  15  minutes  that  I 
have  said  nothing  worth  while,  then  I  can  stop. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Suppose  you  start  in  for  15  minutes.  First  tell 
the  committee  whom  you  are  and  whom  you  represent. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  May  I  "suggest,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  this  ought  to  be  in 
the  form  of  a  specific  amendment  to  this  bill?  Whatever  you  have 
ought  to  be  in  the  form  of  specific  amendment  to  the  bill  that  we  are 
endeavoring  to  perfect. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Have  you  something  prepared  in  specific  or  concrete 
form? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes,  sir;  I  have  something  specifically  prepared, 
but.  not  being  a  lawyer,  I  do  not  think  I  am  capable  of  making  an 
amendment  to  your  bill  that  will  pass  muster. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  are  capable  of  reducing  your  important  ideas  to 
writing,  are  3rou  not  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes,  sir :  and  I  have  them  here  in  writing. 

(The  matter  referred  to  is  as  follows:) 

THE    SELF-HELP    PLAN  :    A    PROGRAM    OF    RECONSTRUCTION    SOLVING   THE   PROBLEM    OF 
UNEMPLOYMENT    THE    AMERICAN    WAY. 

Placing  education  as  the  foundation  of  the  plan,  and  recognizing  the  spirit  of 
the  new  democracy  as  expressed  in  the  self-evident  truth  that  every  human 
heing  is  endowed  with  the  inalienable  right  to  the  ownership  of  a  job,  giving 
him  access  to  the  means  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  life,  developing  in  the  person 
an  independence  such  as  every  lover  of  liberty  should  possess,  and  places  the 
person  on  equal  footing  with  every  other  person  as  to  opportunity  in  the  race 
for  the  pursuit  of  happiness. 


332  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

A  BILL  To  establish  in  the  Federal  Board  for  Vocational  Education  a  Bureau  of  Self- 
Help  Education,  making  appropriation  for  its  support  and  for  other  purposes. 

[Proposed  by  the  Self -Help  Plan  Society.] 

Be  it  enacted  ~by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  I'nitcd 
States  of  America  in  Congress  Assembled :  That  there  is  established  in  the 
Federal  Board  for  Vocational  Education  a  division  to  be  known  MS  the  Division 
of  Self-Help,  the  director  of  which  shall  receive  a  salary  at  the  rate  of  SS.ooo 
per  annum. 

That  there  be  in  such  division  a  section  of  farm  workshop  education  and  a 
section  of  self-help  community  in  charge  of  a  superintendent  of  education  and  a 
superintendent  of  communities,  each  of  whom  shall  receive  a  salary  of  $5,000 
per  annum. 

That  this  act  be  known  as  Self-Help  Act  and  that  the  word  "  board  "  herein- 
after used  in  this  act  shall  mean  the  Federal  Board  for  A'ocational  Education, 
and  the  word  "establishment"  shall  mean  farm  workshop  schools  and  the  word 
"  community  "  shall  mean  self-help  community.  That  the  word  "  director " 
shall  mean  the  director  of  the  self-help  division  of  the  Federal  Board  for  Voca- 
tional Education. 

SEC.  2.  That  the  director,  subject  to  the  general  direction  of  the  board,  shall  ad- 
minister, execute,  and  enforce  the  provisions  of  this  act,  and  for  that  purpose 
have  full  power  and  authority  to  make  rules  and  regulations  not  inconsistent 
with  the  provisions  of  this  act,  necessary  or  appropriate  to  carry  out  its  pur- 
poses, and  shall  decide  all  questions  arising  under  the  act.  Wherever  under  any 
provision  or  provisions  of  the  act  regxilations  are  directed  or  authorized  1o  be 
made,  such  regulations,  unless  the  context  otherwise  requires,  shall  or  may  be 
made  by  the  director,  subject  to  the  general  direction  of  the  board. 

SEC.  3.  That  the  director  in  cooperation  with  States,  counties,  cities,  and  any 
other  agencies  shall  through  the  section  of  farm  workshop  education  establish 
on  the  public  domain  national  forests,  State  lands,  or  any  other  lands  that  may 
be  required,  farm  workshop  schools.  These  schools  shall  teach  the  science  of 
farming  and  other  necessary  trades  and  professions  which  supply  the  means  to 
satisfy  the  needs  of  life  by  practical  creative  work.  Such  labor  shall  be  utilized 
as  far  as  possible  in  producing  and  manufacturing  the  food,  clothing,  shelter, 
tools,  materials,  and  equipments  necessary  for  the  maintenance  of  said  estab- 
lishments. Such  establishments  shall  be  open  to  persons  of  all  ages  and  of  both 
sexes,  either  as  individuals  or  as  family  units. 

The  director  when  necessary  shall  provide  the  means  to  bring  the  prospective 
students  to  the  establishments.  The  director  shall  maintain  an  employment 
service  as  a  branch  of  the  establishment  for  the  placement  of  students. 

SEC.  4.  That  the  director  in  cooperation  with  States,  counties,  cities,  and  any 
other  agencies  shall  through  the  section  of  self-help  community  establish  on  the 
public  domain  national  forests,  State  lands  or  any  other  lands  that  may  be 
required,  farm  workshop  villages. 

The  director  shall  select  those  from  the  students  attending  the  establish- 
ment who  have  proved  themselves  capable  and  worthy,  group  them  harmoni- 
ously according  to  their  respective  vocation,  locate  them  in  the  self-help 
colony — a  farm  workshop  village  laid  out  on  a  definite  plan  by  an  expert  on 
community  settlement — back  these  groups  with  land  for  farming  and  other 
purposes,  implements,  tools,  stock,  buildings,  and  other  equipment  necessary 
for  the  successful  pursuit  of  their  vocation  on  a  system  of  credit  to  be  deter- 
mined by  the  board,  and  during  the  period  of  such  a  credit  the  director  shall, 
as  the  agent  of  the  student  draftsmen,  supervise  the  sales  and  the  marketing 
of  their  products  and  purchase  their  supplies.  And  for  this  purpose  the  direc- 
tor is  authorized  to  business  agents  and  to  establish  the  necessary  warehouses, 
exchanges,  and  stores. 

The  director  shall  allot  as  much  land  as  in  the  board's  discretion  may  be 
required  for  the  support  of  sxich  allottee  and  his  dependents.  Such  allotment 
shall  be  made  only  for  the  period  of  actual  and  continuous  occupancy  and 
beneficial  use  by  such  allottee,  but  the  improvements  on  the  land  and  the  right 
of  occupancy  and  use  may  be  sold  or  otherwise  shall  pass  by  descent  in  like 
manner  as  real  estate. 

The  director  shall  plan  the  farm  workshop  village  in  such  manner  that  there 
shall  be  produced  from  the  various  workshops  thereon,  as  far  as  is  possible, 
all  the  supplies  that  are  needed  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  farm  workshop 
villages  and  producing  a  surplus  of  the  products  of  the  predominating  industry 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  333 

of  the  community  which  is  governed  by  the  natural  resources  of  the  community. 
The  surplus  to  be  exchanged  with  other  communities. 

The  director  shall  establish  in  each  farm  village  a  community  house  to  be 
the  center  of  the  social  activities  of  the  community. 

SEC.  5.  That  the  President  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  withdraw 
from  entry  under  existing  land  laws,  from  time  to  time  as  much  of  the  public 
domain  as  shall  in  his  judgment  be  requisite  for  the  carrying  out  of  the  pro- 
visions of  this  act.  When  so  withdrawn,  such  lands  shall  be  subject  to  dis- 
position under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  and  where  necessary  additional  lands 
not  already  publicly  owned  may  be  acquired. 

SEC.  6.  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  board  to  make  or  cause  to  have  made 
studies,  investigations,  and  reports  with  particular  reference  to  their  use  in  aid- 
ing in  the  cooperation  with  the  States,  counties,  cities,  and  other  agencies  in 
the  establishment  of  the  farm  workshop  schools  and  self-help  colonies.  When 
the  board  deems  it  advisable,  such  studies,  investigations  and  reports  may  be 
made  in  cooperation  with  or  through  other  departments  and  bureaus  of  the 
Government,  and  the  board  in  its  discretion  may  cooperate  with  any  bureau, 
department,  State  board,  and  with  such  other  public  or  private  agencies  as  it 
may  deem  advisable  in  performing  the  duties  imposed  upon  it  by  this  act. 

The  board  shall  have  the  power  to  cooperate  with  States,  counties,  cities,  or 
any  other  agencies  in  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  this  act  on  the  plan  which 
the  board  is  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  the  previous  acts.  The  board  shall 
also  have  the  power  to  adopt  another  plan  or  plans  which  will  be  more  suitable 
to  fulfill  the  purpose  of  this  act. 

SEC.  7.  That  the  board  is  hereby  authorized  and  empowered  to  receive  such 
gifts  and  donations  from  either  public  or  private  sources  as  may  be  offered 
unconditionally.  All  moneys  received  as  gifts  or  donations  shall  be  paid  into 
the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  and  shall  constitute  a  permanent  fund,  to  be 
called  the  "  Special  Self-Help  Fund,"  to  be  used,  in  the  discretion  of  the  said 
board,  in  connection  with  the  appropriation  hereby  made  or  hereafter  to  be 
made,  to  promote  and  maintain  the  aforesaid  establishments ;  and  a  full  report 
of  all  gifts  and  donations  offered  and  accepted,  and  all  disbursements  there- 
from, shall  be  submitted  annually  to  Congress  by  said  board. 

SEC.  8.  For  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  this  act  there  is  hereby  appropri- 
ated, out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  not  otherwise  ap- 
propriated, for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June,  1920,  the  sum  of  $5,000,000 ;  for  the 
fiscal  year  ending  June,  1921,  the  sum  of  $10,000,000 ;  for  the  fiscal  year  ending 
June,  1922,  $20,000.000;  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June,  1923,  $30,000,000;  for 
the  fiscal  year  ending  June,  1924,  $40,000,000 ;  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June, 
1925,  $50,000,000.  The  board  is  hereby  authorized  to  so  proportion  the  funds 
to  the  various  branches  of  this  work  on  a  plan  that  will  best  serve  the  purpose 
of  this  act. 

SEC.  9.  All  moneys  appropriated  by  this  act,  excepting  that  portion  used  by 
the  board  to  acquire  land,  shall  be  refunded  to  the  Government  with  interest 
from  the  earnings  of  the  student-workmen  on  a  plan  to  be  formulated  by  the 
board. 

SEC.  10.  The  said  board  shall  file  with  the  Clerk  of  the  House  and  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Senate  on  July  1,  1920,  and  every  three  months  thereafter,  for 
the  information  of  Congress,  an  itemized  account  of  all  expenditures  made 
under  this  act,  including  names  and  salaries  of  employees.  Said  board  shall 
also  make  an  annual  report  to  Congress  of  its  doings  under  this  act  on  or 
before  December  1  of  each  year. 

SEC.  11.  The  board  is  hereby  granted  authority  to  reorganize  and  readjust 
the  work  of  any  of  its  divisions  and  offices,  to  employ  instructors,  supervisors, 
clerks,  and  any  other  assistants,  and  to  take  any  further  action  that  may  be 
deemed  necessary  to  accomplish  the  purposes  of  this  act. 

SEC.  12.  This  act  shall  take  effect  immediately  upon  its  passage  and  all  acts 
and  parts  of  acts  inconsistent  with  this  act  are  hereby  repealed. 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  My  name  is  E.  Philip  Rosenthal,  and  I  was  born 
in  Russia.  I  came  here  to  this  country  because  American  ideals  ap- 
pealed to  me.  I  am  not  in  favor  of  this  plan  for  many  reasons. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Where  do  you  live  and  where  have  you  been  living  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  have  lived  for  15  years  in  Portland,  Oreg. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  What  is  your  business  there? 


334  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  My  business  is  lecturing. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  On  what  subjects? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  On  these  particular  ideas,  or  on  human  welfare. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Have  you  been  lecturing  in  just  one  place? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  No,  sir;  all  over  Oregon  and  California. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  On  the  subject  of  human  welfare  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  Do  you  belong  to  any  organization  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  have  talked  to  many  organizations. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  organizations  do  you  represent  in  your  lectures  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  represented  the  Human  Welfare  Organization, 
which  has  branches  in  Oregon,  Washington,  and  California. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Have  you  convinced  the  people  in  the  chairman's 
home  city  on  this  subject? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  think  that  before  I  am  through  I  will  convince 
you  gentlemen  right  here. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  What  is  the  name  of  this  organization  you  repre- 
sent? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  said  I  represented  the  Human  Welfare  Organi- 
zation. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  I  thought  you  said  a  human  welfare  organization. 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  No. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  The  organization  has  funds  for  this  purpose? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  No;  there  were  just  some  contributions  made. 
The  mayor  of  the  town  and  the  chamber  of  commerce  paid  my  ex- 
penses in  coming  here.  I  refer  to  the  mayor  of  Portland,  Oreg. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Do  you  represent  them  here  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  No,  sir;  I  represent  this  idea.  We  had  a  meeting 
of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  and  they  got  together  $200.  One  man 
put  in  $100  and  the  rest  gave  $100,  and  with  that  money  I  came  here. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  move  that  we  give  this  gentleman  10 
minutes. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  suggest  that  we  give  this  gentleman  sufficient  time 
to  present  his  views. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  15  minutes,  and  you  may  proceed  with 
your  statement. 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  am  not  in  favor  of  this  plan,  first,  for  the  reason 
that  this  plan  is  un-American.  The  American  ideal  is  100  per  cent 
ideal,  and  wherever  we  start  in  we  should  say  "  all."  We  say  that  all 
men  are  born  free  and  equal,  and  that  all  men  have  the  inalienable 
right  to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  The  American 
ideal  is  all  ideal,  and  whenever  there  is  a  proposition  that  does  not 
take  in  all  of  the  people,  then  that  proposition  is  un-American,  and  I 
am  against  it. 

Even  if  the  proposition  takes  in  99  per  cent  of  the  people  and  leaves 
out  only  1  per  cent,  it  is  un-American  in  principle,  and  I  am  opposed 
to  it.  The  proposition  of  the  American  ideal  is  much  broader  than 
what  is  claimed  by  some  people.  It  is  not  the  greatest  good  for  the 
greatest  number,  but  it  is  the  greatest  good  for  all.  It  is  such  that  not 
one  can  be  left  out.  The  proposition  of  an  autocracy  is  the  proposi- 
tion that  the  King  is  the  only  one  having  rights,  and  that  all  the  rest 
are  his  subjects;  the  proposition  of  the  autocracy  is  that  the  King  is 
the  only  one  that  has  inalienable  rights,  and  that  the  others  have  such 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  335 

rights  as  he  gives  them.  This  proposition  takes  in  2  per  cent  of  the 
soldiers,  and.  therefore,  is  not  a  100  per  cent  proposition.  For  that 
reason  I  am  opposed  to  it,  because  I  want  a  100  per  cent  proposition. 
That  is  one  objection. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  When  you  say  "100  per  cent"  do  you  mean  100 
per  cent  of  the  soldiers? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  say  that  you  should  put  them  all  in.  because  if 
you  include  100  per  cent  of  the  soldiers  it  will  be  reflected  so  as  to 
benefit  all  of  the  people.  If  you  do  something  for  100  per  cent  of  the 
soldiers  it  will  be  reflected  iii  benefits  to  all  the  people.  You  will  be 
doing  something  for  the  soldiers,  and  it  should  be  something  for  100 
per  cent  of  the  soldiers. 

Then,  another  objection  which  I  have  to  this  proposition  is  that 
it  is  misleading.  It  is  not  what  it  purports  to  be. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Will  you  let  me  understand,  first,  exactly  what  your 
proposition  Xo.  1  is?  Do  you  mean  by  making  it  100  per  cent  to 
take  in  nonsoldiers  as  well  as  soldiers? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  No,  sir;  I  mean  to  take  in  all  the  soldiers. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Then,  if  this  offers  an  opportunity  to  all  soldiers,  does 
it  not  include  all  of  them  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Do  I  understand  that  this  1 5  minutes  allotted  me 
is  to  be  taken  up  by  you  or  by  myself? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  .  Please  answer  my  question. 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  mean  that  100  per  cent  should  take  in  all  of 
the  soldiers  who  want  something  done  for  them. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Then,  it  is  your  proposition  to  confine  it  to  soldiers? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  But  you  want  to  take  in  all  of  the  soldiers? 

Mr.  ROSENIHAL.  Yes,  sir;  and  that,  of  course,  will  be  reflected  in 
benefits  to  the  whole  of  the  people.  In  this  way  you  can  do  some- 
thing for  one  man  that  will  be  reflected  in  benefits  to  others.  If  you 
do  something  for  100  per  cent  of  the  soldiers,  that  will  be  reflected  in 
benefits  to  the  whole  of  society.  The  whole  of  society  will  be  bene- 
fited by  it. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Do  you  want  to  include  the  Spanish  War  and  Civil 
War  veterans? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Well,  they  have  had  something,  and  I  do  not 
know  about  that.  The  Civil  War  soldiers  had  their  lands  given 
to  them,  and  I  consider  this  a  proposition  for  these  returning  soldiers. 

Xow.  the  next  objection  is  that  this  proposition  is  misleading  and 
is  going  under  a  false  pretense.  We  are  made  to  believe  that  this 
means  a  job  for  the  man.  but.  in  reality,  it  means  a  man  formed  for 
a  job.  This  job  is  here,  and  you  are  looking  for  men  to  fit  the  job. 
Xow.  last  night  I  was  wondering  about  what  this  judge  who  had 
spoken  here  meant  when  he  claimed  that  this  was  a  reclamation 
project.  I  was  lying  in  bed,  and  I  said,  "This  is  a  problem  for 
Solomon  to  decide."  Then,  all  at  once.  I  heard  a  voice  say,  "  This 
is  Solomon :  what  do  you  want "?  I  said,  "  Is  that  a  proposition  for 
reclamation  or  is  it  a  proposition  for  soldiers"?  The  voice  said, 
"Put  it  down  and  see  how  it  fits."  I  did  so,  and  saw  that  it  fit 
2  per  cent.  Then  the  voice  said,  "  It  is  no  fit  at  all.  Anything  that 
fits  only  2  per  cent  is  not  fair  to  the  soldiers." 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  actually  converse  with  Solomon? 
133319—19 22 


336  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  That  does  not  make  any  difference. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  actually  converse  with  him,  or  was  that 
merely  a  figure  of  speech  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  It  may  have  been  a  figure  of  speech,  or,  maybe  I 
really  had  the  conversation.  That  does  not  make  any  difference. 

The  third  objection  is  that  even  this  2  per  cent  is  not  the  beginning 
of  the  100  per  cent ;  that  it  is  not  1  and  2  but  that  it  is  about  40  and  41. 
This  picture  of  farms  for  soldiers  looks  to  me  like  a  second  story  on 
stilts.  There  is  nobody  who  can  reach  it  except  a  second-story  man. 
This  proposition  requires  that  the  soldiers  should  have  at  least  $f>00, 
and,  besides  that,  he  must  have  sufficient  money  to  carry  him  through 
until  he  makes  a  crop.  Now,  it  is  absolutely  impossible  for  any  man 
or  for  any  soldier  who  has  nothing  but  his  hands  to  make  his  living 
by  going  to  work  and  taking  his  chances  under  this  liberal  offer.  He 
is  entirely  cut  out  from  this  proposition. 

Now,  I  have  an  article  here  by  Elwood  Mead,  who  is  the  father  of 
this  plan  here.  He  was  the  consulting  engineer,  and  he  verifies  my 
statement  that  the  problem  which  they  are  trying  to  solve  is  not  a 
soldier  problem,  but  is  the  problem  of  the  country — that  is,  that  the 
farms  are  going  to  waste  and  that  they  must  do  something  to  reclaim 
the  farm  idea.  It  is  only  by  a  coincidence,  and  it  is  only  a  coincidence, 
that  the  soldier  has  appeared.  Then,  there  was  the  demand  that  the 
soldier  should  fit  that  particular  farm  idea.  Mr.  Mead  is  the  father 
of  this  proposition,  and  he  specifically  states  that  the  soldier  should  be 
made  to  pay  an  installment  of  $500  for  the  simple  reason  that  if  he 
does  not  pay  the  money  he  will  not  be  apt  to  be  a  farmer,  and,  conse- 
quently, will  drop  the  project  and  disappear.  They  are  not  trying  to 
solve  the  problem  of  the  soldier,  but  they  are  trying  to  make  a  success 
of  particular  colonies,  it  making  no  difference  to  them  whether  the 
soldier  succeeds  or  not.  It  is  not  a  soldier  proposition,  but  it  is  simply 
an  effort  to  make  a  success  of  the  other  proposition.  I  can  leave  you 
here  a  copy  of  Mr.  Mead's  article  and  you  can  read  it  for  yourselves. 

Then  I  have  another  article  from  Prof.  Newell,  who  was  chief  of  the 
Reclamation  Service  of  this  country,  and  he.  too.  attacks  that  plan 
upon  the  same  particular  idea  that  it  is  mixed — that  is,  that  it  is  not 
a  soldier  proposition,  but  that  it  is  a  mixed  proposition.  Now.  I  do 
not  say  that  Secretary  Lane  is  in  league  with  the  land  speculators, 
but  I  do  say  that  Secretary  Lane  is  at  the  head  of  the  reclamation 
proposition.  The  Reclamation  Service  is  in  his  department,  and  he 
wants  to  boost  his  department,  just  as  any  other  man  who  is  in  charge 
of  a  particular  service  would  do. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  Mr.  Newell  against  this  proposition  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Do  you  mean  the  Mr.  Newell  who  was  the  Chief  of  the 
Reclamation  Service? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes,  sir;  and  who  is  now  connected  with  the  Uni- 
versity of  Illinois.  I  saw  this  article  which  was  printed  in  the 
Vocational  Summary. 

The  CHAIIOIAN.  When  did  it  appear? 

Mr.  ROSENTIIAL.  About  three  or  four  months  ago. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  You  do  not  mean  that  Mr.  Newell  is  against  it,  but 
you  simply  imply  that  the  arguments  he  uses  would  support  your 
theory  ? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  337 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  No,  sir ;  he  is  against  the  proposition. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  read  this  bill  before  the  committee  and 
the  other  bill  by  Secretary  Lane  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  No,  sir.  He  wrote  something  about  the  idea  that 
was  brought  forth,  or  when  it  was  brewing.  Now,  there  is  another 
thing  I  want  to  tell  you,  which  may  or  may  not  be  a  secret,  and 
that  is  that  the  Department  of  Labor  is  not  in  favor  of  this  propo- 
sition. The  Department  of  Labor  at  the  last  session  of  Congress  did 
all  they  could  to  defeat  this  proposition.  They  went  to  work,  or 
tried  to  go  to  work,  to  get  somebody — I  do  not  know  who  the  Con- 
gressman was — to  introduce  some  amendment  to  take  the  whole  propo- 
sition out  of  the  hands  of  Secretary  Lane  and  put  it  into  the  hands 
of  a  commission. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Who  was  that? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  do  not  know  who  introduced  the  bill.  You  can 
find  that  out  yourself.  You  can  get  people  down  here. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  A  representative  of  the  Department  of  Labor,  speak- 
ing for  the  department  and  for  the  American  Federation  of  Labor, 
explained  that  situation  and  said,  notwithstanding  that,  that  they 
were  perfectly  willing  to  adopt  this  plan,  and  they  were  unreservedly 
in  favor  of  it. 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  That  is  all  right.  Now,  I  have  here  an  article 
from  Wallaces'  Farmer,  which  has  just  come  this  morning.  This 
article  in  Wallaces'  Farmer  says.  "  We  have  no  wish  to  be  unfair  "- 

Mr.  WHITE  (interposing).  Did  you  refer  to  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment's Department  of  Labor  or  to  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  To  the  Department  of  Labor.  They  are  trying  to 
get  this  proposition  out  of  the  hands  of  the  Reclamation  Service, 
and  want  to  put  it  in  the  hands  of  a  commission,  which  will  be  in 
charge  of  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  and 
the  Secretary  of  Agriculture. 

Mr.  RAKER.  They  are  in  favor  of  this  proposition,  and  the  only 
difference  is  that  they  want  to  handle  it  instead  of  letting  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Interior  handle  it? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  it.  Now,  here  is  an  article  in 
Wallace's  Farmer,  which  came  this  morning. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  date  is  that? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  May  23.    This  article  says : 

We  have  no  wish  to  be  unfair,  but  this  whole  scheme  would  seem  to  be  far 
moiv  in  ilio  interest  of  owners  of  desert  and  swamp  lands  and  the  communities 
round  about  than  in  the  interests  of  the  soldiers. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  reading  all  of  the  article  ? 
Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  No,  sir.    The  article  continues: 

Why  would  it  not  be  a  good  thing  to  take  the  whole  matter  out  of  the  hands 
of  Secretary  Lane?  Why  should  the  Department  of  the  Interior  meddle  with 
farm  lands  at  all?  If  anything  along  this  line  should  be  done  by  the  Govern- 
ment, the  Department  of  Agriculture  is  the  Department  through  which  it  ought 
to  go.  The  people  there  certainly  know  as  much  about  farming  as  the  Depart- 
ment of  the  Interior,  and  are  far  better  informed  concerning  agricultural  con- 
ditions generally.  In  addition,  that  department  has  an  organization  which 
can  be  of  real  help  to  the  inexperienced  fanner. 

Mr.  RAKER.  There  is  only  a  difference  between  them  as  to  whether 
it  should  be  under  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  under  the  Depart- 
ment of  Labor,  or  under  the  Department  of  the  Interior.  Where  do 
you  think  it  ought  to  go? 


538  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  will  give  you  my  plan.  Now,  Secretary  Lane 
himself  has  indorsed  this  particular  proposition  of  mine.  I  told  him 
.about  it,  and  I  talked  this  proposition  of  mine  over  with  him.  He 
inferred  that  my  proposition  was  too  big  for  Congress.  He  said.  "  It 
does  not  require  any  more  money,  but  the  idea  is  too  big."  I  myself 
.believe  that  you  are  big  men  and  that  you  can  comprehend  big  ideas. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Who  made  that  remark? 

Mr.  ROSEN  THAL.  Mr.  Lane  did  not  use  those  particular  words,  but 
he  inferred  to  me  that  Congress  was  ready  to  do  good  work  and  to 
do  popular  things,  but  was  not  ready  to  do  big  things.  That,  of 
course,  is  the  proposition.  The  Secretary  himself  has  indorsed  this, 
and  gave  me  a  written  statement  indorsing  this  particular  plan  or 
idea. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Your  plan? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  you  do  not  reciprocate  with  the  Secretary  and 
indorse  his  plan? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  would  indorse  his  plan  if  he  would  make  it 
include  98  per  cent  more. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  indorse  it  as  far  as  it  goes  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  No,  sir;  I  do  not,  because  it  lacks  the  beginning. 
It  is  all  in  the  middle. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  dp  not  indorse  it  as  far  as  it  goes? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  No,  sir ;  not  at  all ;  absolutely  not,  because  it  is 
un-American. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  do  not  indorse  it  as  a  step  in  the  right 
•direction? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  No  sir;  it  is  not  a  step,  but  it  is  a  second  story. 
You  must  have  a  basement  and  first  story  before  you  can  reach  it. 
As  it  is,  you  must  have  a  flying  machine  in  order  to  get  up  there.  I 
can  not  indorse  that  particular  proposition.  Now,  the  whole  situa- 
tion is  this:  The  whole  world  is  afire  just  at  the  present  time;  the 
world  is  crumbling  and  there  is  a  great  problem  for  somebody  to  solve. 
I  believe  that  the  American  Congress  can  find  the  solution. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  did  not  quite  get  your  idea  that  the  world  was 
crumbling. 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  crumbling.  When  men  are  fight- 
ing one  another,  when  men  are  running  bayonets  through  other  men's 
bodies,  when  men  are  murdering  other  men,  and  when  men  are  grab- 
bing other  men  by  the  throat,  I  say  the  world  is  crumbling.  Do  you 
want  anything  more  than  that?  Civilization  is  crumbling. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  dealing  with  a  lot  of  generalities  and  we 
have  before  us  a  specific  proposition.  Your  time  is  running  rapidly, 
but  we  do  not  want  to  curtail  you. 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  say  that  the  American  Congress  has  got  the  solu- 
tion of  this  problem.  Now,  the  solution  of  this  problem  is  this :  My 
proposition  is  that  the  Board  for  Vocational  Education  is  dealing 
with  men,  while  the  Reclamation  Service  is  dealing  with  lands.  The 
Reclamation  Service  is  dealing  with  the  land  propositon.  Now,  I 
vvant  to  have  a  division  in  the  Federal  Board  for  Vocational  Educa- 
tion, under  the  Federal  Board  for  Vocational  Education,  the  Secre- 
tary of  Agriculture,  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  and  the  Commissioner 
of  Education.  I  want  those  representatives  of  those  three  depart- 
ments, and  I  want  a  division  in  there  to  carry  out  this  proposition. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  339 

I  would  add  to  that  a  school  where  everybody  could  come  and 
learn  the  science  of  farming  and  the  science  of  every  trade  that  is 
necessary  in  the  pursuit  of  a  vocation.  I  would  not  only  take  in  the 
farmer,  'but  I  would  take  in  the  whole  mass  of  soldiers ;  not  only 
those  who  want  to  farm,  but  those  who  want  to  be  blacksmiths,  those 
who  want  to  be  engineers,  or  those  who  want  to  be  jewelers,  or  those 
who  want  to  be  anything  else  by  which  they  can  make  a  living.  I 
would  take  in  the  whole  scope  of  industrial  education.  I  want  every 
student  to  learn  how  to  do  things,  and  after  the  student  has  become 
proficient  in  his  vocation  to  back  him  up  in  that  particular  vocation, 
either  on  the  farm  or  in  some  other  trade.  It  would  include  every 
line  of  industry  in  which  they  would  want  to  engage.  There  is  abso- 
lutely no  reason  why  this  Government  should  back  up  men  as. 
farmers  and  not  back  them  up  in  other  lines  of  industry.  Why  not; 
back  him  up  in  a  carpenter  shop  or  a  blacksmith  shop  or  any  other 
shop  ?  There  is  no  reason  why  Congress  should  back  up  a  man  on  a 
farm  and  not  back  up  a  man  who  can  make  beautiful  things  in  silver 
and  gold;  there  is  no  reason  why  a  man  should  be  backed  up  on  a 
farm  and  should  not  be  backed  up  in  any  other  kind  of  industry. 

If  we  do  something  for  the  farmers — and  we  have  no  lands  any 
more — we  must  spend  $500,000,000  in  procuring  lands.  If  it  is  a, 
question  of  backing  the  soldier,  then  let  us  make  this  a  soldier  propo- 
sition and  back  every  soldier.  Then  the  proposition  will  take  in  all 
these  other  men.  I  say  that  because  I  want  the  school  to  be  a  pro- 
ductive school,  where  the  student  \vho  comes  in  may  produce  while 
he  learns,  and  the  things  that  he  produces  will  feed  him  and  support 
him  while  at  school.  It  will  not  be  any  expense  at  all.  There  is  a, 
beautiful  idea  embodied  in  this  workshop.  We  will  say  to  the  sol- 
dier, "  Do  you  want  to  be  helped  ?  "  The  soldier  would  say,  "  I  do 
not  know  what  to  do."  We  would  say  to  him,  "  Would  you  like  to 
learn  the  carpenters'  trade,  would  you  like  to  learn  the  cabinetmakers' 
trade,  the  jewelers'  trade,  or  would  you  like  to  be  a  fireman  or  a 
brakeman?  We  will  instruct  you  in  anything  you  want  to  learn.  We 
will  give  you  work  and  give  you  a  chance."  We  could  say  to  himr 
"The  Government  of  the  United  States  is  willing  to  back  up  every 
soldier  and  will  do  everything  for  the  soldier  in  the  way  of  teaching 
him  to  do  useful  things."  Then,  after  the  soldier  has  learned  how  to- 
do  things,  we  ought  to  go  to  work  and  say  to  him,  "  Look  here,  the 
Government  is  liberal,  and  we  will  back  you  up.  Do  you  want 
to  start  in  the  cabinetmaker's  business,  do  you  want  to  start  in  the 
blacksmith  business,  or  in  some  other  business?  If  you  do,  we  will 
back  you  up."  The  only  difference  between  this  plan  and  the  other 
plan  is  that  under  this  plan  which  I  propose  the  Reclamation  Serv- 
ice goes  to  work  in  cooperation  with  the  Federal  Board  for  Voca- 
tional Education,  and  we  start  a  school  there.  We  do  not  pay  wages 
to  those  who  go  to  school,  but  we  make  them  productive  while  they  are 
learning,  so  that  they  may  pay  their  own  expenses. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Have  you  reduced  your  plan  to  writing? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  have,  but  it  is  not  in  proper  shape  for  a  bill. 
It  is  ungrammatical,  or  it  is  not  worded  in  the  proper  form.  I  am 
not  a  lawyer,  but  you  can  get  the  drafting  machinery  which  Congress 
has  provided  to  put  it  in  proper  shape.  Then  you  will  have  a  100  per 
cent  plan.  When  you  put  something  in  that  will  benefit  2.000,000- 


340  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

soldiers  you  will  not  benefit  all  of  them.  Now,  there  is  a  great  prob- 
lem of  unemployment.  I  think  it  is  far  better  that  the  labor  market 
should  be  short  than  that  one  man  should  go  around  in  this  country 
hungry  and  unable  to  find  a  job.  It  is  far  better  that  the  capitalist 
should  not  find  people  to  work  for  him  than  it  is  for  one  man  to  go 
around  hungry  and  naked.  We  are  a  rich  country  and  can  feed  the 
world.  We  can  solve  the  unemployment  problem  here,  and  Avhen  we 
have  done  that  we  will  have  solved  every  other  problem.  We  will 
have  solved  the  problem  of  capital  and  labor;  we  will  have  solved 
the  problem  of  child  labor;  and  we  will  have  solved  every  other  in- 
dustrial problem. 

In  New  York  there  was  a  report  that  a  majority  of  the  children  in  a 
school  district  went  to  school  hungry.  Think  of  it !  Think  of  chil- 
dren in  America  going  to  school  hungry,  while  Congress  sits  here  and 
does  not  provide  a  plan  by  which  the  fathers  of  those  children  can 
get  work  and  be  able  to  feed  their  children  !  On  the  child-labor  prob- 
lem Congress  has  enacted  two  laws,  and  both  of  them  were  uncon- 
stitutional, but  if  you  will  provide  a  plan  by  which  the  fathers  of  the 
children  can  get  jobs  so  that  they  can  feed  their  children  and  not 
send  them  to  school  hungry  no  judge  can  make  that  law  unconstitu- 
tional. Then  you  will  have  solved  the  child-labor  problem.  Now. 
under  the  plan  you  have  here  $500,000,000  are  demanded  of  you. 
Suppose  you  go  to  work  and  use  that  $500,000,000  under  this  plan  of 
Secretary  Lane's,  and  it  will  benefit  only  2  per  cent  of  the  soldiers; 
but  if  you  will  enlarge  it  so  as  to  include  100  per  cent  of  the  soldiers, 
then  you  will  have  solved  this  American  problem  in  an  American  way. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  know  that  the  jurisdiction  of  this  com- 
mittee pertains  only  to  the  lands  of  the  Government,  and  that  it  has 
no  jurisdiction  over  many  of  the  matters  that  you  have  been  speak- 
ing of?  Have  you  taken  these  other  features  up  with  any  other  com- 
mittees that  have  jurisdiction  of  them? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  come  before  this  committee  because  this  whole 
proposition  is  based  on  lands.  If  this  committee  has  not  the  juris- 
diction, then  it  is  your  business  to  go  to  work  and  call  in  the  other 
committees.  If  I  give  you  something  that  it  is  worth  while,  then  you 
should  go  to  work  and  fix  it  up  in  proper  form.  If  I  say  something 
that  you  think  is  foolish,  then,  of  course,  you  should  not  pay  any 
attention  to  it. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Do  you  want  your  proposed  bill  inserted  as  a  part  of 
jour  remarks  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Without  objection,  it  will  be  inserted  in  the 
record. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  would  like  to  have  his  proposed  bill  or  plan  to  pre- 
cede his  remarks. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  will  be  done. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  You  said  that  you  were  born  in  Europe.  How  long 
have  you  been  in  this  country  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL..  Over  30  years. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  You  have  been  naturalized? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes,  sir;  I  was  naturalized  just  as  soon  as  I  could 
be.  Just  as  soon  as  God  let  me,  I  became  a  naturalized  citizen.  I 
will  tell  you  right  now  that  I  have  done  some  work  in  this  country 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  341 

for  the  benefit  of  America,  and  I  have  also  pushed  the  question  of 
industrial  education.  I  helped  to  make  this  Federal  Board  for  Voca- 
tional Education.  In  the  solution  of  the  American  problems,  the 
Federal  Board  for  Vocational  Education  and  every  man  in  this 
country  should  go  to  work  and  try  to  do  things.  It  is  said  that  the 
industries  in  this  country  are  only  25  per  cent  efficient.  These  in- 
dustrial colonies  or  soldiers'  colonies  should  be  made  models  for 
helping  the  Federal  Board  for  Vocational  Education  to  bring  up  the 
efficiency  all  over  this  country.  Now,  just  imagine  what  would  hap- 
pen in  this  country  when  manufacturing  concerns  could  increase 
their  production  400  per  cent.  To-day  it  is  only  25  per  cent  efficient. 
In  the  first  place,  they  could  pay  four  times  the  wage  they  are  now 
paying. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  During  the  30  years  you  have  been  in  this  country, 
what  has  been  your  business  or  vocation  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  organized  the  Industrial  Art  League,  which 
is  promoting  industrial  education  in  this  country,  and  I  will  give 
you  the  names  of  some  of  the  people  who  have  worked  with  me: 
Mr.  Lowden,  who  is  now  governor  of  Illinois;  Dr.  W.  R.  Harper, 
the  late  president  of  the  University  of  Chicago 

Mr.  SMITH.  He  has  been  dead  about  10  years. 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  said  30  years  ago.  Then,  there  was  Dr.  George 
E.  Vincent,  now  president  of  the  Rockefeller  Foundation;  Francis 
W.  Parker,  principal  of  the  Chicago  Normal  School  and  founder  of 
the  Francis  W.  Parker  School;  Prof.  George  N.  Carmen,  director 
of  the  Lewis  Institute ;  Prof.  Gabriel  Bomberger,  head  of  the  Jewish 
Manual  Training  School;  Dr.  Henry  Wade  Rogers,  Dr.  E.  Benjamin 
Andrews,  and  other  leading  educators.  I  have  been  working  trying 
to  improve  the  condition  of  America  in  an  educational  way. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Do  you  represent  organized  labor? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Well,  no. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  You  said  a  while  ago  that  organized  labor  was 
against  this  bill. 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  No,  sir;  I  did  not  say  that.  I  said  the  Depart- 
ment of  Labor  was  against  it. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  You  do  not  represent  organized  labor? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  No,  sir;  but  I  told  you  that  the  State  federa- 
tion of  labor  indorsed  my  plan.  I  have  taken  this  proposition 
up  with  the  State  Federation  of  Labor  of  Oregon,  and  they  have 
indorsed  it.  I  have  taken  it  up  with  churches,  and  they  have  in- 
dorsed it.  There  is  no  opposition  to  it.  You  are  not  opposed  to 
it ;  you  can  not  be  opposed  to  it,  because  who  is  opposed  to  seeing  that 
everybody  should  eat  and  be  able  to  work  ?  Nobody  can  be  opposed 
to  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  been  cooperating  in  the  work  of  the 
Federal  Board  for  Vocational  Education  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  No,  sir ;  the  Federal  Board  for  Vocational  Educa- 
tion was  not  exactly  the  idea  that  we  worked  for. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  mean,  have  you  been  cooperating  with  them  in 
their  work? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  No,  sir.  I  pushed  it  and  I  educated  for  the 
Federal  Board  for  Vocational  Education,  but  the  Federal  Board  for 
Vocational  Education  has  gotten  out  from  the  hands  of  educators 


342  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

and  has  gotten  into  the  hands  of  business.  They  are  using  the 
Federal  Board  of  Vocational  Education  as  a  means  for  making  men 
for  machines.  My  idea  is  for  men — that  is,  to  make  the  shop  for  the 
man  and  not  make  the  man  for  the  shop.  We  are  doing  things  in 
this  country  that  are  the  reverse  of  that.  What  we  want  to  do  is 
to  make  the  man  first,  and  upon  him  to  build  the  country. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  had  35  minutes.  Does  any  member  of 
the  committee  wish  to  ask  Mr.  Rosenthal  any  questions? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Do  you  think  it  is  necessary  to  send  men  to  school 
to  make  of  them  carpenters,  blacksmiths,  machinists,  etc.,  instead  of 
letting  them  learn  those  trades,  as  they  are  now  learned  to  a  large 
extent,  by  associating  them  with  those  who  are  engaged  in  those 
occupations  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  These  schools  ought  to  be  for  the  people,  and 
there  they  should  be  trained. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Is  it  intended  that  these  people  in  training  should  not 
be  compensated? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  They  should  have  the  opportunity  to  learn  until 
they  become  proficient  in  their  vocations. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Do  you  think  that  would  be  attractive  to  the  soldier  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes,  sir.  The  idea  is  not  for  him  to  go  to  school 
long.  If  he  was  in  school  two  months — 

Mr.  SMITH  (interposing).  You  could  not  teach  a  man  a  trade  in 
two  months. 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  He  would  be  a  soldier,  and  the  question  of  whether 
he  should  be  paid  while  learning  is  a  detail. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Is  not  your  proposition  a  burden  upon  the  Govern- 
ment? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  No,  sir ;  because  they  could  pay  back  the  money. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  do  you  estimate  as  the  cost  of  this  scheme? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  For  the  proposition  there,  about  $100,000,000 — 
$5,000,000  the  first  year,  $10,000,000  the  next  year,  and  $20,000.000 
thereafter.  It  might  run  for  five  years. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  mean  that  that  will  take  care  of  the  lands 
for  soldiers? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  of  the  vocational  education  and  everything 
of  that  kind? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  much  will  that  aggregate,  or  what  would 
be  the  total  cost  of  it  ? 

Mr.  ROSFNTHAL.  The  total  cost  would  be  about  $100,000,000. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  many  farms  would  you  secure,  and  at  what 
price? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Those  farms  could  be  small. 

The  CHATRM\N.  What  would  be  the  size  of  one  of  your  farms  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  These  farms  would  be  about  20  acres. 

The  CHAIRMAN  .  Where  would  they  be  located  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Everywhere. 

The  CHAIRMAX,  In  what  States  would  you  have  those  farms? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  In  all  the  States. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  in  what  particular  States  would  you  have 
20-acre  farms? 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  343 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  would  have  them  in  our  State  of  Oregon.  We 
could  have  20-acre  farms  in  Oregon.  Here  is  what  I  would  do,  and 
I  will  show  you  a  picture  of  that  community.  Here  is  a  community  or 
settlement  with  farms  and  shops  intermingled.  These  farms  are 
intensive  farms. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  would  the  land  on  your  20-acre  farm  cost? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  do  not  know. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  advising  this  committee  on  a  matter  on 
wThich  you  have  no  idea  of  the  cost  involved  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  had  some  idea  about  two  years  ago,  but  now,  as 
you  know,  lands  are  three  times  as  high. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  just  come  from  Oregon.  What  could 
you  buy  these  farms  for  there  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  have  not  investigated  lands  there  lately. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  advising  this  committee  on  an  important 
subject. 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Do  you  know  that  Secretary  Lane  has  $200,000  to 
be  used  in  bringing  that  information  to  you.  I  have  not  exact  in- 
formation on  that,  but  I  am  bringing  to  you  a  plan. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  your  opinion  of  land  values  in  Oregon? 
Take  eastern  Oregon,  for  instance,  and  state  what,  in  your  opinion, 
you  would  have  to  pay  for  a  20-acre  farm. 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Col.  Good,  who  bought  a  tract  for  a  French  con- 
cern there,  bought  some  for  $20  per  acre. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Where  was  that  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  In  eastern  Oregon. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Where  in  eastern  Oregon  ?     In  Malheur  County  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes.  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  in  Coos  County,  too? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  think  in  Coos  County,  also. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Coos  County  is  not  an  eastern  county,  but  it  is 
one  of  the  Pacific  coast  counties. 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  There  are  three  tracts.  There  is  the  Handley 
tract. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Handley  tract  is  the  "P"  Ranch  in  Harney 
County.  It  is  a  cattle  ranch  containing  150,000  acres.  What  could 
you  get  that  for? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  could  have  gotten  it  four  or  five  years  ago  for 
$20  per  acre. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  ever  been  on  the  "  P"  Ranch? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  No,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  not  know  that  the  "  P  "  Ranch  is  at  an 
elevation  of  nearly  4,000  feet,  where  they  have  frost  nearly  every 
month  in  the  year,  and  do  you  not  know  that  it  is  in  an  arid  section 
where,  in  order  to  make  a  living  on  a  20-acre  farm,  the  land  would 
have  to  be  irrigated?  What  would  it  cost  to  irrigate  it? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  have  not  the  figures.  You  could  get  those  fig- 
ures from  the  Reclamation  Service. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  know  what  a  20-acre  farm  in  that  section 
would  produce  ?  If  you  put  a  man  on  a  20-acre  farm  out  there,  don't 
you  know  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  him  to  make  a  living? 
Don't  you  know  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  a  man  to  make  a 
living  in  eastern  Oregon  on  a  20-acre  farm,  unless  you  placed  him 


344  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

at  the  lower  altitudes  where  he  could  engage  in  truck  or  orchard 
farming,  as,  for  instance,  in  the  Hood  River  section? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  There  are  some  20-acre  farms  in  Oregon.  I  know 
of  school  boys  making  $600  on  a  garden  right  in  the  city  of  Portland. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  yould  you  pay  for  a  20-acre  tract  in  the  city 
of  Portland? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  There  are  lots  of  tracts  being  sold  at  $20  per  acre 
within  10  miles  of  Portland. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  would  be  $400. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Where  is  this  land  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  At  Portland,  Oreg. 

Mr.  RAKER.  At  $20  per  acre? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes,  sir;  that  was  four  years  ago,  but  not  now. 
You  can  take  Secretary  Lane's  figures. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Were  you  connected  with  any  other  business  except 
this  agitation  business — 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL  (interposing).  I  am  not  an  agitator. 

Mr.  SNELL.  I  think  that  is  the  word  you  yourself  used. 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  want  to  ask  you  whether  it  is  your  idea  that  the 
students  in  these  various  industries  in  which  they  are  to  be  instructed 
shall  pay  the  Government  the  expense  of  their  education  subse- 
quently i 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes,  sir;  everything  shall  be  repaid. 

Mr.  WHITE.  In  cash  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  From  earnings.  Of  course  there  are  some  details 
I  have  not  worked  out,  and  there  are  a  lot  of  questions  to  be  decided. 
We  ought  to  do  something  for  the  soldier  who  does  not  want  to  be 
a  farmer  and  who  is  not  fit  to  be  a  farmer. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  would  you  pay  per  acre  for  land  in  the 
truck- farming  section  of  Oregon? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  do  not  know.  I  would  like  to  take  Secretary 
Lane's  proposition  there  and  add  to  it  these  schools  or  workshops, 
and  let  the  Federal  Board  for  Vocational  Education — 

The  CHAIRMAN  (interposing).  You  have  been  dealing  with  a  lot 
of  glittering  generalities,  and  I  would  like  to  have  your  views  on  some 
practical  phases  of  the  matter.  How  many  farms  would  you  pur- 
chase for  the  soldiers  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  would  purchase  just  as  many  farms  as  there  are 
soldiers  who  want  farms. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  many  are  there? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  would  have  to  get  those  figures. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Assume  that  there  are  4.000,000  soldiers  and  that 
one-half  of  them  want  to  be  farmers:  Then  you  would  purchase 
2,000.000  farms,  would  you  not? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  It  does  not  make  any  difference;  yes,  sir.  What 
is  the  difference?  What  difference  does  it  make  what  we  pay  if  the 
soldier  pays  it  back  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  your  idea,  then,  as  to  how  much  we 
should  provide? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  That  is  for  the  committee.  You  are  going  to 
work  investigating  here,  and  you  have  given  the  Secretary  $200,000 
so  as  to  enable  him  to  come  before  you  and  bring  you  the  details. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  345 

Now,  you  want  me,  a  poor  man,  to  come  here  and  bring  you  the  de- 
tails. The  idea  is  my  business.  I  am  not  an  engineer,  but  my 
specialty  is  education.  I  give  you  the  idea,  and  you  have  got  the 
machinery  here  for  making  it  practical. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  You  say  that  your  propositon  has  the  indorsement 
of  several  organizations,  including  some  churches? 

Mr.  ROSEN THAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Have  you  talked  to  any  soldiers'  organization  upon 
this  subject? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  What  organization? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  With  soldiers. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  With  individual  soldiers? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  You  have  talked  with  how  many  of  them  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Probably  with  50  or  60. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  What  do  they  think  about  it? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  They  think  it  is  fine  and  beautiful. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  I  mean  this  Mondell  bill  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  They  say  that  it  is  all  right  if  a  man  wants  to 
be  a  farmer ;  but  some  of  them  said,  "  I  do  not  want  to  farm."  You 
are  trying  to  do  something  to  fit  the  soldier  to  the  farms.  This  is 
something  that  should  be  done  for  the  soldiers,  and  I  want  you  to 
do  something  for  the  machinist,  for  the  carpenter,  and  for  all  of 
the  soldiers  who  are  here  asking  for  help.  It  was  not  the  farmer 
alone  who  fought,  but  the  machinists,  carpenters,  and  laboring  men 
also  fought,  and  they  want  to  be  appreciated  in  this  beneficent  under- 
taking. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  are  in  favor  of  providing  homesteads  for  those 
soldiers  who  desire  them  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Provided  you  provide  for  the  others,  too. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Will  you  not  answer  my  question?  Are  you  in  favor 
of  providing  homesteads  according  to  the  methods  provided  in  this 
bill  for  the  soldiers  who  desire  to  take  advantage  of  them  and  make 
homes  upon  the  land  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  are  against  that  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  am  against  it  unless  you  provide  for  the  others. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  are  against  providing  homes  for  any  soldiers? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes;  if  you  do  not  at  the  same  time  provide  for 
the  carpenters  and  blacksmiths. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  understand  my  question  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes,  sir ;  I  do,  perfectly. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Let  us  start  back  again.  Are  you  in  favor  of  the  pur- 
poses of  this  bill  to  provide  homes  for  soldiers  who  desire  to  go  on 
the  land  and  farm  ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  am  in  favor  of  providing  jobs  for  the  soldiers, 
and  they  will  get  their  own  homes.  I  want  to  provide  for  the  soldier 
who  wants  to  be  a  blacksmith,  carpenter,  or  jeweler,  or  who  wants 
to  follow  any  of  the  other  trades.  I  am  not  in  favor  of  any  special 
privileges  to  anybody.  I  am  an  American  citizen,  and  believe  in 
affording  equal  opportunity  to  all. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Do  you  think  that  the  Government  should  take  charge 
of  these  soldiers  and  look  after  them  from  now  on  ? 


346  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Either  all  of  them  or  none  of  them. 
Mr.  BAKER.  Let  us  get  the  question  first.  Let  us  understand  what 
the  question  is,  and  do  not  answer  something  else.  In  that  way  we 
will  save  time.  You  are  in  favor  of  the  Government  taking  charge  of 
these  soldiers  and  providing  work  for  them  and  caring  for  them  from 
now  on  until  their  death  ? 

Mr.  KOSENTHAL.  No,  sir;  I  am  in  favor  of  the  American  principle 
of  equal  opportunity  to  all,  and  I  am  in  favor  of  having  this  Govern- 
ment to  give  the  American  soldier  who  went  to  the  war  a  fair  oppor- 
tunity. That  is  all.  I  am  in  favor  of  this  country  giving  the  soldier 
an  opportunity,  and  of  giving  all  the  soldiers  an  opportunity — not 
simply  2  per  cent  of  the  soldiers,  but  100  per  cent  of  them. 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  furnishing  these  soldiers  with  homesteads,  do  you 
think  the  Government  should  permit  them  to  sell  them  after  they 
have  made  the  proper  payments?  After  the  soldier  has  made  all 
proper  payments,  do  you  think  he  should  have  the  right  to  sell  it? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  That  is  another  matter  entirely,  and  I  can  not  go 
into  that  proposition.  I  am  not  talking  about  single  tax,  and  I  do 
not  want  to  bring  that  in. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  am  not  talking  about  single  tax,  but  I  am  talking 
about  this  bill. 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes,  sir ;  I  am  in  favor  of  affording  the  soldier  an 
opportunity  to  own  the  land,  so  that  no  land  speculator  shall  come 
along  and  grab  it  away  from  him. 

Mr.   RAKER.  Do  you  think  this   Government   should  change  its 
policy  of  permitting  a  man  to  own  real  estate  in  fee,  and  that  the 
Government  should  own  the  land  and  keep  charge  of  it  and  let  the 
soldier  use  it  for  a  time? 
Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes,  sir. 
Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  your  theory  ? 
Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  All  right.     Now,  if  you  should  locate  these  soldiers 
upon  homesteads,  you  would  want  them  located  in  separate  homes? 
Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  No,  sir;  in  communities. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Let  me  get  through  with  my  question.  We  will  make 
much  better  progress  if  you  will  simply  answer  my  questions,  and 
then  you  can  dilate  upon  them  afterwards  as  fully  as  you  like.  Are 
you  in  favor  of  the  method  of  farming  in  this  country  whereby  the 
soldier  settler  would  have  an  individual  farm,  or  are  you  in  favor 
of  a  community  center  where  they  would  live  in  a  town  and  farm 
their  land  from  that  center? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  I  am  in  favor  of  every  soldier  having  his  own 
farm  entirely,  but  at  the  same  time  I  would  keep  the  community. 
They  would  have  the  churches,  schools,  workshops,  stores,  etc.,  to- 
gether. 

Mr.  RAKER.  They  would  have  the  workshops,  schools,  churches, 
etc.,  together,  and  then  the  soldier  who  owned  his  farm  would  work 
his  farm  from  that  community  center? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  No,  sir;  he  would  live  right  on  his  farm.  He 
could  live  right  on  his  farm,  and  he  does  not  have  to  live  somewhere 
else.  He  would  still  have  the  community. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Would  you  have  the  farm  at  the  community  center? 
Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  No,  sir.     Suppose  they  had  100  farms  and  about 
40  workshops  intermingled  with  the  churches,  school  houses,  etc., 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  347 

and  the  community  center.  That  would  be  a  building,  and  they  could 
all  come  to  the  community  center.  Then  they  would  not  be  hindered 
as  they  are  now,  and  they  would  be  very  much  more  closely  asso- 
ciated. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Where  ? 

Mr.  ROSEXTHAL.  Under  this  community  plan. 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  what  way  are  farmers  hindered  now?  Do  you 
mean  that  they  are  hindered  because  the  individual  farms  are  sepa- 
rated by  a  distance  of  a  mile  and  a  half  from  other  places? 

Mr.  ROSEXTHAL.  They  have  not  the  community  sociability. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  I  am  trying  to  get  at  is  whether,  fundamentally, 
you  are  trying  to  advocate  to  this  committee  that  there  should  be 
a  community  place  or  center  where  they  should  live  and  have  their 
workshops,  churches,  moving  picture  showrs,  etc.,  all  of  it  forming 
a  sort  of  community  ? 

Mr.  ROSEXTHAL.  You  are  giving  a  wrong  interpretation  of  the 
word  "  community."  The  man  would  live  on  his  farm,  and  the 
place  where  the  public  buildings  are  located  will  be  the  center,  with 
every  farmer  having  about  the  same  distance  to  go  in  order  to  reach 
the  community  center.  Where  there  is  a  community  center  there 
is  the  elevator,  schoolhouse,  church,  etc.  Those  things  make  up  the 
community. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  understand  that  you  have  crossed  the  continent 
from  Portland,  Oreg.,  to  tell  the  committee  that  this  bill  should 
not  pass? 

Mr.  ROSEXTHAL.  I  came  here  from  Portland,  Oreg.,  to  tell  this 
committee  that  any  legislation  which  is  not  marked  for  the  Ameri- 
can people  is  a  stab  at  the  American  Government. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then,  in  your  opinion,  this  bill,  if  enacted  into  law, 
would  be  a  stab  at  the  American  Government  ? 

Mr.  ROSEXTHAL.  Yes,  sir;  it  would  be  class  legislation. 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  would  be  vicious  legislation,  to  your  mind? 

Mr.  ROSEXTHAL.  Yes,  sir;  class  legislation.  It  is  just  as  bad  for 
Congressmen  to  get  away  from  American  principles  in  legislation 
as  it  is  for  Socialists  to  get  away  from  American  principles.  That 
is  what  I  came  to  tell  the  committee. 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  gist  of  your  whole  argument  is  that  the  activities 
of  the  Federal  Board  of  Vocational  Education  should  be  extended 
so  as  to  enable  them  to  educate  all  the  people  ? 

Mr.  ROSEXTHAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Do  you  suppose  that  a  very  large  percentage  of  the 
soldiers  want  to  go  to  school? 

Mr,  ROSEXTHAL.  Yes,  sir;  a  number  of  them  want  the  opportu- 
nity. Here  is  a  large  unemployment  problem.  Here  is  a  soldier  who 
is  peddling  because  he  has  got  "to  do  something.  He  can  not  do  any- 
thing because  he  does  not  know  how. 

Mr.  SMITH.  If  you  do  not  pay  them,  do  you  think  many  of  them 
would  enter? 

Mr.  ROSEXTHAL.  They  will  when  you  get  this  scheme  started.  The 
proposition  is  to  get  work,  or  to  give  the  soldiers  something  to  do, 
because  they  have  nothing  to  do. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  Are  many  of  them  idle? 

Mr.  ROSEXTHAL.  Quite  a  number. 


348  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  Avould  like  to  make  this  suggestion:  Does  not  the 
gentleman  know  that  from  all  the  industries  of  this  country  and 
from  all  the  farms  of  the  United  States  there  is  a  cry  for  laborers  at 
the  present  time? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WHITE.  That  demand  is  constantly  coming  up  from  every 
direction. 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WHITE.  We  hear  nothing  else  from  the  West  but  the  cry  for 
labor. 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  In  the  West  they  want  men.  and  they  will  pay 
them  $100  per  month  for  two  months'  work.  It  costs  $200  to  go 
there,  and  the  labor  does  not  go  because  it  can  not  get  a  steady  job. 

Mr.  WHITE.  That  is  partially  true;  but  on  the  farms  in  the  West, 
through  all  the  Middle  States,  and  in  the  great  Central  States  there 
is  a  demand  for  labor  at  remunerative  wages  the  year  around.  Those 
wages  include  board  and  lodging,  and  those  men  are  better  off  than 
workingmen  in  the  city.  I  do  not  care  to  open  up  that  great  ques- 
tion, but  a  great  deal  of  the  discussion  of  this  labor  question  indicates 
a  lack  of  knowledge  of  the  situation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  claim  that  the  chamber  of  commerce  of 
the  city  of  Portland,  Oreg.,  is  against  this  Mondell  bill,  and  that  you 
have  been  sent  here  to  represent  the  chamber  of  commerce  in  oppo- 
sition to  it? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  No,  sir;  I  did  not  make  any  claim  like  that. 
When  I  said  the  chamber  of  commerce,  I  meant  the  people  there  at 
the  chamber  of  commerce.  They  clubbed  in  together  and  gave  me 
$200,  and  blessed  me  to  go  on  my  way. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  have  a  special  fund? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  These  were  private  people. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then  you  do  not  represent  the  chamber  of  com- 
merce ? 

Mr.  ROSENTHAL.  No,  sir. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  HERBERT  J.  DRANE,  A  REPRESENTATIVE 
IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  FLORIDA. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  understand,  Mr.  Drane,  that  Members  of 
Congress  are  limited  to  15  minutes. 

Mr.  DRANE.  It  is  not  really  necessary  for  me  to  appear  before  the 
committee  at  all,  except  to  place  my  State  on  record,  and  I  think 
it  is  my  duty  to  do  that.  I  have  not  had  the  pleasure  of  reading 
the  bill  introduced  by  Representative  Mondell,  and  I  only  know  of 
it  in  the  broad  and  general  principles  underlying  it.  Now,  just  to 
give  you  a  very  brief  history,  and  you  will  then  understand  what  I 
am  driving  at:  When  the  so-called  Lane  bill  was  first  formulated, 
and  I  mean  before  it  was  introduced,  away  last  fall,  the  legislature 
of  my  State  happened  to  be  in  extraordinary  session  at  that  time. 
Secretary  Lane  was  invited  by  the  legislature  to  appear  before  a  joint 
session  of  the  legislature  at  Tallahassee  to  explain  just  what  his  l>ill 
was.  He  knew  that  it  wras  an  extraordinary  session  of  the  legislature : 
he  did  not  know  how  long  it  would  last,  but  he  knew  it  would  only 
last  for  a  few  days  at  best.  So  he  sent  for  me  to  ask  me  sonic  ques- 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  349 

tions  as  to  the  feasibility  of  getting  there  in  time  to  address  the  legis- 
lature. 

At  that  time  he  discussed  his  bill  with  me  only  in  a  very  general 
way.  inviting  my  attention  to  it.  I  told  the  Secretary  that  it  would 
be  impossible  for  him  to  get  to  Tallahassee  even  on  the  invitation 
of  the  legislature,  because  it  was  going  to  adjourn  within  about 
three  days.  He  could  not  get  there,  and  I  asked  him  what  he  de- 
sired to  do,  or  what  was  his  particular  reason  for  wanting  to  go.  He 
said  that  his  object  in  wanting  to  go  to  talk  to  the  Florida  Legislature 
was  that  Florida  might  place  itself  in  a  position,  if  it  so  desired  or 
considered  it  wise,  to  cooperate  with  the  United  States  Government 
in  the  interest  of  this  bill,  provided  the  bill  should  pass.  I  said, 
"  Mr.  Secretary,  that  is  easily  done  in  a  much  simpler  and  less  ex- 
pensive way  than  you  have  proposed.  I  will  undertake  to  get  a  bill 
passed  by  the  Florida  Legislature  within  two  days  which  will  en- 
able Florida  to  participate  in  cooperation  with  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment." I  did  not  know  what  I  could  do,  but  I  was  willing  to  try. 
I  sent  a  telegram  to  the  president  of  the  senate  and  the  speaker  of 
the  house  in  Florida,  calling  attention  to  Secretary  Lane's  plan, 
which,  I  understand,  as  I  have  said  before,  is  the  general  plan  under 
discussion  now.  The  Florida  Legislature  passed  a  bill  which  became 
a  law  within  two  or  three  days,  the  substance  of  which  was  this: 
That  the  land  board —  we  have  a  board  in  Florida  in  which  all  the 
public  lands  are  vested 

Mr.  SMITH  (interposing).  State  lands? 

Mr.  DRAXE.  State  lands  derived  from  the  Government.  They  are 
so-called  swamp  and  overflowed  lands,  but  the  swamp  and  overflowed 
lands  under  the  law  do  not  mean  lands  that  are  really  swamp  and 
overflowed  lands.  I  live  on  some  swamp  and  overflowed  land  myself, 
which  is  about  on  the  same  elevation  as  the  dome  of  the  Capitol  at 
Washington.  We  class  as  swamp  and  overflowed  land,  lands  that  are 
much  higher  than  the  land  on  which  we  stand  now.  This  bill  simply 
provides  that  the  land  board  shall  have  carte  blanche  to  do  anything 
it  desires  to  do  in  so  far  as  it  will  cooperate  with  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment in  any  bill  involving  the  principle  laid  down  in  the  bills  that 
are  under  cfiscussion.  Then  this  bill  which  passed  the  legislature  also 
provided  that  the  governor  should  appoint  a  committee  of  well  known 
citizens  of  his  own  choosing,  who  should  cooperate  with  the  Govern- 
ment in  the  event  of  any  discussion  coming  up  as  to  privately  owned 
lands  in  large  bodies.  That  committee  was  appointed.  I  regret  that 
I  do  not  remember  the  names  of  the  members,  but  I  remember  seeing 
them,  and  they  are  gentlemen  of  distinguished  standing  in  the  State. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  The  names  are  published  here  in  the  hearing. 

Mr.  DRAXE.  Yes ;  I  see  here  that  what  I  am  now  saying  to  you  is 
already  contained  in  your  hearings. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  a  very  brief  statement  there. 

Mr.  DRAXE.  Going  just  a  little  further  before  I  consume  my  15 
minutes,  Florida  has  practically  every  class  of  land  under  the  "sun, 
and  it  grows  practically  everything  that  is  grown  or  that  is  suitable 
to  the  southern  climate.  It  produces  corn,  hay,  oats,  and  other  crops, 
but  it  does  not  grow  wheat.  It  produces  the  citrus  and  semicitrus 
fruits,  and  it  grows  every  vegetable  that  is  known  to  mankind.  It  has 
lands  for  corn,  lands  for  fruit,  lands  for  truck,  and  it  has  lands  for 


350  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

general  farming,  and  selections  have  been  made,  as  I  understand  it,  of 
lands  to  be  offered,  but  not  privately  owned  lands.  I  know  of  no 
privately  owned  lands  that  are  ready  to  be  offered,  although  I  assume 
that  they  will  be.  The  lands  that  have  been  selected  are  State  lands. 
They  are  not  cut-over  lands,  but  they  are  virgin  timber  lands,  prairie 
lands,  virgin  swamp  lands,  etc.,  all  of  which  are  subject  to  or  at  the 
disposal  of  the  Government  upon  any  terms  which  are  reasonable  and 
which  can  be  agreed  upon  as  equitable  and  just  as  between  the  State 
land  board  and  the  Federal  authorities.  I  simply  want  to  say  that 
my  State  is  in  hearty  cooperation  and  sympathy  with  this  movement, 
and  is  willing  to  cooperate  in  any  bill  which  the  wisdom  of  Congress 
may  see  fit  to  adopt.  I  think  that  covers  about  all  that  I  have  to  say. 

The  CiiAiitM  \N.  I  suppose  that  neither  you  nor  the  people  of  your 
State  feel  that  this  is  a  big  scheme  solely  for  the  purpose  of  irrigating 
the  arid  lands  of  the  West? 

Mr.  DRAKE.  I  have  never  thought  of  it  in  that  way. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  poison  that  has  been  sown  among  southern 
Members  is  that  this  is  a  big  scheme  to  irrigate  the  arid  lauds  of  the 
West,  and  the  poison  is  being  sown  among  western  Members  that 
this  is  a  big  scheme  to  drain  the  swamp  lands  of  the  South.  The  poison 
is  being  sown  among  Senators  and  Representatives  from  the  East 
that  this  is  a  big  scheme  on  the  part  of  both  the  West  and  the  South 
to  irrigate  arid  lands  in  the  West  and  to  drain  swamp  lands  in  the 
South.  You  take  no  stock  in  that,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  DRAKE.  My  view  of  that  is  this,  that  we  have  an  ail-American 
Congress  and  that  we  have  an  ail-American  President.  We  have  an 
all-American  country.  I  believe — and  God  give  them  light  to  see  it — 
that  we  are  all  working  for  a  100  per  cent  Americanism.  I  believe 
that  we  are  trying  to  benefit  the  soldier  who  went  across  the  seas  to 
fight,  in  order  to  show  that  America  is  100  per  cent  American.  I  do 
not  care  whether  a  Democrat  should  indorse  or  introduce  this  bill,  or 
whether  a  Republican  should  indorse  or  introduce  it ;  and  I  do  not  stop 
to  inquire  whether  a  soldier  is  a  Democrat  or  a  Republican.  I  will  be 
glad  to  see  the  American  soldier,  if  he  wants  to  better  his  condition 
when  he  comes  back  into  the  paths  of  peace,  to  settle  where  it  best 
suits  him  to  settle,  whether  it  be  North,  South.  East,  or  West.  Of 
course.  I  would  rather  see  him  settle  in  my  State,  which  is  the  most 
cosmopolitan  State  in  the  Union.  We  have  people  there  from  all  over 
the  world.  I  should  say,  not  from  all  over  the  world  but  from  all 
over  the  United  States,  because,  thank  God,  we  have  very  few  foreign- 
ers there. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  know  that  under  this  bill  no  scheme  can  be 
put  over  on  the  Government  and  no  land  taken  over  by  the  Govern- 
ment until  its  selection  is  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior, 
the  Governor  of  the  particular  State  in  which  the  land  lies,  and  a 
member  of  the  Federal  reserve  bank;  and  after  it  is  approved  by  all 
three  of  them,  it  has  to  be  approved  by  the  Appropriations  Committee 
of  the  House,  and  then  by  the  House  itself  ? 

Mr.  DRANE.  You  could  not  put  any  more  safeguards  around  it  if 
you  tried.  I  do  not  look  upon  it  as  anything  except  what  it  shows  on 
its  face,  that  it  is  something  for  the  benefit  of  the  American  soldier, 
with  the  love  and  affection  of  his  Government  behind  it.  That  is  all 
I  see  in  it. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  351 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  understand  that  your  state  is  so  deeply  interested  in 
this  proposition  that  the  State  land  board  has  been  authorized  to  do 
whatever  may  seem  proper  in  the  way  of  cooperation,  and  that  the 
State  land  board  has  indicated  that  they  would  turn  over  200,000  acres 
of  State  land  to  the  Government? 

Mr.  DRAKE.  I  understand  that  by  rumor.  I  have  no  official  informa- 
tion, but  I  have  no  doubt  that  it  is  true. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Can  you  say  in  what  way  this  benefits  the  soldier? 
Give  us  your  opinion  of  this  proposition. 

Mr.  DRAKE.  If  the  soldier  wants  to  farm,  there  is  his  opportunity ; 
if  he  wants  to  get  work,  there  is  his  opportunity.  I  understand  the 
bill  provides  that  he  shall  have  good  employment  at  a  remunerative 
wage.  I  might  say  that,  whether  the  bill  passes  or  not,  if  50,000  sol- 
diers want  to  work  on  farms  they  can  find  them  in  Florida  to-day. 

Mr.  WHITE.  You  do  not  think  there  is  any  prejudice  in  the  minds 
of  your  people,  your  farmers,  against  this  scheme  out  of  considera- 
tion for  the  fact  that  it  might  increase  the  supply  of  farm  products 
and  thereby  decrease  their  profits? 

Mr.  DRAKE.  No,  sir;  I  should  be  ashamed  to  represent  people  like 
that. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  am  glad  you  bring  that  out. 

Mr.  DRAKE.  That  is  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  we  have  with  us  Mr. 
Atkeson,  of  the  National  Grange  or  Patrons  of  Husbandry.  He  has 
been  invited  to  appear  before  the  committee  on  two  matters. 

Are  you  ready  to  be  heard,  Mr.  Atkeson  ? 

Mr.  ATKESOK.  Yes,  sir. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  THOMAS  C.  ATKESON,  OF  BUFFALO,  W.  VA, 
REPRESENTING  THE  NATIONAL  GRANGE,  PATRONS  OF  HUS- 
BANDRY. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  first  matter  on  which  Mr.  Atkeson  has  been 
invited  to  appear  before  the  committee  is  the  matter  of  some  press 
notices  that  have  been  sent  out  and  which  many,  on  account  of  their 
tenor,  assumed  came  from  his  organization. 

You  are  familiar,  Mr.  Atkeson,  with  these  press  notices,  are  you? 

Mr.  ATKESOK.  I  have  one  in  my  pocket. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  have  three  of  them  here.  Now,  these  press 
notices  are  full  of  insinuations,  innuendoes,  and  poison  against  the 
committee,  intimating  and  directly  alleging  that  Mr.  Atkeson  did  not 
have  a  fair  opportunity  to  be  heard  before  the  committee;  that,  in 
spite  of  the  manifest  antagonism,  he  was  able  to  secure  just  15  min- 
utes before  the  committee  to  express  the  views  of  the  National 
Grange. 

If  you  are  familiar  with  these  notices,  I  wish  you  would  state 
whether  or  not  these  press  notices  emanated  from  the  grange. 

Mr.  ATKESOK.  I  am  glad  to  say  emphatically  that  they  did  not, 
and  until  a  copy  drifted  into  my  office,  as  they  seem  to  have  drifted 
into  other  people's  offices,  I  knew  nothing  about  it.  This  press  notice 
professes  to  make  some  quotations  from  the  statement  I  made.  If 
those  quotations  are  correct,  I  stand  responsible  for  them;  if  not, 
I  do  not.  I  can  not  remember  now,  because  my  statement  was  purely 
133319—19 23 


352  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

extemporaneous  the  other  day,  and  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  remem- 
ber the  quotations  from  my  statement.  If  anyone  has  a  copy  of  the 
statement  he  can  compare  them.  If  they  have  quoted  me  correctly, 
I  stand  responsible  for  the  statement. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  stand  responsible  for  what  you  have  stated 
before? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Exactly;  but  for  no  other  word  or  statement  made 
in  that  circular.  I  do  not  know  the  motive ;  I  do  not  know  who  sent 
it.  I  know  nothing  about  it  except  that  it  seems  to  have  emanated 
from  some  enterprising  newspaper  man. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  do  not  know  the  origin  of  it? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  No,  sir.    It  was  not  written  or  prepared  in  my  office. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  On  page  2  of  one  of  them  it  says:  "In  spite  of 
the  manifest  antagonism  in  certain  congressional  circles,  the  National 
Grange  succeeded  in  securing  15  minutes  for  the  testimony  of  Prof. 
T.  C.  Atkeson."  Was  there  any  antagonism  to  your  appearing  be- 
fore this  committee? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Not  a  bit  in  the  world.  I  came  in  here  without  any 
expectation  of  making  a  statement.  The  Chairman  recognized  the 
fact  that  I  was  here  and  said,  "  We  have  15  minutes."  I  looked  at 
my  watch  and  saw  it  was  about  15  minutes  before  12  o'clock.  I  think 
someone  asked  a  question  as  to  interference  with  my  15  minutes, 
and  the  hearing  was  continued  until  about  20  minutes  after  12, 
giving  me  on  the  whole  about  35  minutes,  including  the  questions 
asked  and  answered. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  stated  to  the  committee  that  less  than  15 
minutes  would  satisfy  you  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  said  it  would  be  entirely  satisfactory. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  you  got  over  35  minutes? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then  in  the  middle  of  your  remarks  you  stated 
that  as  far  as  you  were  concerned,  you  were  through.  You  also 
stated  on  page  73  that :  "  I  have  come  to  the  place  where  I  could 
say  all  I  have  to  say  in  a  very  few  minutes." 

Mr.  ATKESON.  That  is  correct.  The  rest  of  the  notice  I  have 
absolutely  nothing  to  do  with. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  is  from  our  record.  Now,  it  is  implied  in 
this  article  that  although  you  represented  the  great  organization  of 
the  National  Grange,  you  were  asked  whom  you  represented.  Did 
you  feel  that  there  was  any  disrespect  to  you  in  asking  whom  you 
represented  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  did  not. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  knew  that  was  the  customary  way  to  intro- 
duce a  witness  to  a  committee? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  had  absolutely  no  ground  to  feel  that  I  had  been 
shown  anything  but  the  most  absolute  courtesy  on  the  part  of  this 
committee,  in  the  most  good-humored  way,  and  off-handedly.  I 
would  have  been  satisfied  with  5.  10,  or  15  minutes.  I  left  this  room 
in  the  most  good  humor  I  ever  was  in  in  my  life.  Any  implication 
or  any  statement  from  any  source  whatever  that  indicates  anything 
else  is  absolutely  unfounded  in  fact,  and  iinthought  of  until  I  read 
this  notice,  and  I  resent  that  notice  as  much  as  you  gentlemen  <>f  tho 
committee  do. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  353 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  any  idea  of  the  source  of  it? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  I  have  a  suspicion  that  it  was  a  newspaper  man. 
Just  ns  I  was  leaving  the  room  a  gentleman  asked  me  my  name  and 
when  I  asked  who  he  was  I  was  told  that  he  was  a  newspaper  man. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  Is  that  gentleman  in  the  room  ? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  He  was  out  in  the  corridor  at  the  time. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  He  is  not  in  the  room  now  ? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  No,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  You  did  not  ask  for  further  time  when  you  were 
heard  before  ?  •  • «  ;  • 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  No,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  Did  you  feel  that  you  had  ample  time  to  express 
your  views  ? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  I  had  all  the  time  I  wanted,  absolutely. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  Just  another  matter,  Mr.  Atkeson,  in  regard  to 
the  correction  of  your  testimony.  Mr.  Graham  asked  you  this  ques- 
tion :  "  Then  if  your  association  had  been  passing  upon  that,  you 
would  have  opposed  the  homestead  laws  of  1863?"  Your  answer 
was,  according  to  the  notes :  "  We  are  opposed  to  wholesale  home- 
stead laws."  Then  that  answer  was  stricken  out  and  this  inserted 
in  the  notes  returned :  "  It  is  impossible  for  me  to  know  what  farmers 
would  have  done  50  years  ago." 

This  matter  was  brought  up  before  the  committee  and  they  thought 
if  you  wanted  to  make  any  explanation  of  that  answer  you  should 
come  before  the  committee  and  not  strike  out  the  answer. 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  print  the  statement  if  it  is 
correct,  and  I  recall  making  that  statement. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  If  you  wish  to  make  any  further  explanation  of 
}rour  answer,  the  committee  will  be  glad  to  hear  you. 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  The  two  propositions  are  not  comparable  in  any 
way.  The  homestead  proposition,  as  you  all  know,  was  a  question  of 
public  lands  for  soldiers.  I  live  on  a  farm  now  which  was  surveyed 
by  President  Washington  as  a  military  survey.  It  came  through 
Washington  and  his  heirs  to  my  father  and  to  myself.  Following 
the  Civil  War  we  had  whole  States,  almost,  of  fertile  and  pro- 
ductive farm  land,  and  the  soldiers  were  granted  homestead  privi- 
leges on  those  lands. 

I  do  not  think  there  is  any  comparison,  from  any  standpoint,  be- 
tween a  proposition  to  expend  a  half  a  billion  dollars  in  reclaiming 
this  unproductive  land  and  offering  unoccupied  lands  50  years  ago. 
That  is  what  I  wanted  to  convey  by  that  statement.  It  was  impossi- 
ble for  a  man  to  know  what  they  would  have  said  at  that  time.  But 
this  is  what  happened,  so  far  as'the  Eastern  States  are  concerned :  A 
great  many  men  who  owned  lands  were  trying  to  cultivate  them,  and 
they  were  bankrupt  as  a  result  of  this  rather  promoted  development 
of  these  enormously  productive  prairie  lands  in  the  West. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  'As  a  result  of  the  homesteads? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  Yes,  sir.  I  have  an  illustration  in  my  home  State, 
where  land  that  sold  before  the  Civil  War  for  more  than  $100  an  acre, 
a  very  few  years  afterwards  sold  at  $30  an  acre.  Now,  something 
happened,  and  somebody  got  hurt.  The  farm  people  are  a  little  afraid. 
Personally,  I  am  not  at  all  afraid. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  But  the  ultimate  good  was  the  development  of  the 
Nation  ? 


354  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Which  far  surpassed  any  temporary  discomfort 
that  anyone  may  have  suffered,  if  they  did  suffer  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir.  Now,  there  is  just  one  other  explanation  I 
want  to  make,  and  only  one  other,  I  think,  and  that  conies  out  of  a 
statement  made  by  one  of  the  city  papers.  Perhaps  I  made  the  im- 
pression that  I  undertook  to  cover  too  much  territory  in  15  minutes. 
I  realized  that  then,  and  I  realized  it  afterwards  when  I  saw  the  state- 
ment. One  of  the  city  papers,  in  a  little  four-line  statement,  called 
attention  to  the  fact  that  the  reason  the  Grange  people  were  opposed 
to  the  Lane  proposition  was  because  they  were  afraid  of  competition. 
Now,  I  can  submit  all  the  records  you  want,  if  I  had  time,  to  show 
that  we  have  never  feared  legitimate  competition.  I  said,  as  well  as 
I  remember — and  if  you  have  the  statement  we  can  compare  it — that 
if  this  is  a  soldier  proposition — I  will  not  attempt  to  quote  my  lan- 
guage, but  this  is  my  thought — if  it  is  to  benefit  the  soldier,  if  that  is 
the  primary  purpose,  then  it  should  apply  to  all  soldiers,  whether 
they  wished  to  live  in  the  country  or  the  city,  or  engage  in  farming 
or  in  any  other  occupation — I  think  you  will  find  that  is,  in  substance, 
my  statement — that  the  farmers  could  not  see  why  their  business  had 
been  singled  out  to  be  discriminated  against ;  that  soldiers  who  wanted 
to  farm  should  not  be  discriminated  in  favor  of  as  against  those  sol- 
diers who  did  not  want  to  farm.  I  tried  to  put  that  thought  into 
words.  I  think  in  the  statement  it  is  a  little  vague  and  hurried. 

Xow,  how  much  time  can  you  give  me  ?  I  do  not  want  to  hurry  too 
much. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  can  have  all  the  time  you  want. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Much  obliged. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  asked  permission  to  have  inserted  in  the 
record  certain  editorials,  and  here  they  are.  The  committee  thought 
that  you  ought  to  appear  before  them  in  that  connection,  so  that  they 
might  question  }"ou  upon  the  editorials. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  did  not  know  whether  I  had  the  privilege  of  in- 
serting them  or  not. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  do  not  want  to  exclude  them. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  found  them  in  my  office  and  they  were  very  per- 
tinent. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  want  to  read  these  to  the  committee? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  do  not  know.  I  think  perhaps  I  may  if  I  have 
time. 

Mr.  BAKER.  Before  you  go  into  the  explanation  of  this  matter  I 
would  like  to  ask  you  a  question,  Mr.  Atkeson.  Does  your  organi- 
zation repudiate  this  entire  five  page  circular  that  was  sent  out  to 
all  the  members  and  everybody  else  as  a  newspaper  editorial  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  You  me&n  this  statement  that  the  chairman  read? 

Mr.  BAKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  We  are  not  responsible  for  any  of  them  except 
where  it  quoted  me. 

Mr.  BAKER.  I  am  talking  about  your  organization.  They  say  the 
organization  has  opened  headquarters  in  Washington  and' they  are 
going  to  fight  this  legislation,  and  the  general  matter  referred  to  by 
the  chairman.  Now,  I  want  to  know  not  only  as  to  this,  but  have 
vou  taken  this  matter  up  with  the  executive  committee  of  the  organi- 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  355 

zation,  and  have  you  and  do  they  repudiate  this  sort  of  anonymous 
circularizing  by  some  one  who  does  not  belong  to  or  have  anything 
to  do  with  the  organization  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Nothing  whatever.  It  does  not  emanate  from  our 
office. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  you  intend  to  tell  the  com- 
mittee that  that  is  a  spurious  document  of  five  pages,  written  by 
somebody 

The  CHAIRMAN  (interposing).  Judge,  let  me  interrupt  you:  There 
are  more  than  five  pages.  There  are  three  different  press  notices. 
The  first  two  contain  two  pages  each,  and  the  last  contains  five. 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  I  never  saw  any  of  those. 

Mi1.  RAKER.  Then  you  intend  to  tell  the  committee  that  this  docu- 
ment, so  far  as  you  and  your  organization  are  concerned,  has  been 
promulgated  without  your  knowledge  and  consent,  and  is  spurious, 
and  is  repudiated  by  you  and  your  organization. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  We  had  nothing  to  do  with  it  whatever — with  its 
promulgation. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then  you  are  ready  to  answer  that  it  is  a  spurious 
document,  gotten  up  to  misrepresent  you  and  the  committee,  without 
your  knowledge  or  your  organization's  knowledge  or  consent.  That 
is  right,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  That  is  the  situation. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Have  you  the  slightest  idea  from  whence  this  docu- 
ment emanated  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  It  could  only  be  a  guess,  a  very  vague  one.  I  have 
no  information:  I  do  not  know,  but  I  have  my  suspicions  and  I  am 
trying  to  locate  that  press  circular. 

'MrT HERSMAN.  I  will  ask  you  further:  If  you  continue  this  investi- 
gation, will  you  report  to  this  committee  if  you  find  out  in  any  way 
who  wrote  it  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  will  be  perfectly  willing  to  give  you  the  name  if  I 
find  it.  I  will  say.  frankly,  that  we  are  trying  to  find  out  who 
wrote  it. 

Mr.  SMITH.  May  I  ask  you  a  general  question? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Certainly. 

Mr.  SMITH.  You  stated  that  one  of  your  objections  is  that  it  will 
discriminate  against  a  certain  class  of  soldiers  who  do  not  want  to  go 
on  farms.  Do  you  not  believe  that  when  you  develop  100.000  home- 
steads in  the  country  the  merchants  and  mechanics  would  be  benefited 
by  the  increased  market  brought  about  by  the  increased  use  of  harness, 
clothing,  machinery,  and  supplies? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  It  is  probably  true  that  in  the  course  of  time  it  would 
have  that  effect.  This  scheme  would  be  put  into  productive  operation 
so  slowly  that  I  think  it  would  affect  the  food  supply  very  seriously. 

Mr.  SMITH.  But  you  have  not  suggested  anything  better  or  even 
anything  different. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir;  I  am  going  to  suggest  something  before  we 
get  through. 

Mr.  BAER.  How  many  members  are  there  in  the  grange  which  you 
represent  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  The  best  way  I  know  to  answer  that  is  to  say  that  the 
expenses  of  our  office  in  this  city,  which  was  established  in  this  city 


356  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

last  January,  a're  costing  its  members  1  cent  apiece,  and  we  appro- 
priated $10.000,  and  you  can  find  out  easily  what  the  membership  is. 

Mr.  BAER.  I  understand  about  half  of  them  are  women ;  the  women 
belong  to  it  as  well  as  the  men  ? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  Yes.  but  not  half.  Probably  minors  and  women 
represent  about  half.  About  one-half  of  our  membership,  we  esti- 
mate, are  voters:  and  since  the  ladies  will  vote  they  will  all  be  there 
pretty  soon. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  A  representative  of  the  Federation  of  Labor  appeared 
here  and  said  that  every  soldier  taken  out  of  a  town  and  furnished  a 
job  furnished  an  opportunity  of  obtaining  a  home — that  that  of  itself 
benefited  all  the  rest  of  those  that  were  left  there  in  town,  by  reducing 
that  much  competition;  that  every  fellow  who  does  not  go  on  the 
farm  is  benefited  to  a  certain  extent  by  the  fellow  who  goes  on  the 
farm  and  ceases  being  in  competition  for  the  jobs  that  are  left,  and 
becomes  a  producer  to  that  extent  in  reducing  the  high  cost  of  living 
problem.  Do  you  subscribe  to  that  idea  ? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  Our  Federation  of  Labor  people  are  not  making 
many  mistakes  these  days.  They  know  that  is  a  fact — the  statement 
you  made — and  I  know  it  is  a  fact,  and  they  are  not  making  any  mis- 
takes, from  their  standpoint. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  From  a  labor  standpoint  they  would  like  to  see  a  great 
many  of  them  go  on  the  farm  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Unquestionably.  I  am  afraid  if  they  get  enough  of 
them  out  there  there  would  be  so  much  food  produced  that  nobody 
could  get  any  kind  of  price  for  it,  and  they  would  all  flock  back  to 
town  again. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  There  is  no  danger  of  that. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  as  long  as  I  appear  here 
in  a  representative  capacity  I  am  justified  in  trying  to  put  this  organi- 
zation of  farmers  right  before  the  committee.  If  I  misrepresent  it 
or  represent  it  inefficiently,  that  is  my  misfortune.  This  is  not  my 
first  experience  in  this  sort  of  thing. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Might  I  interrupt  you  before  you  go  into  that  ?  What 
is  the  relation  of  the  American  Farmers'  Union  and  different  unions 
of  the  farmers,  and  the  unions  of  the  laboring  people  ?  Have  they  not 
had  a  sort  of  federation  whereby  they  are  all  working  and  pulling  in 
the  same  direction :  and  if  not.  what  is  that  relation  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  They  are  entirely  separate  in  all  their  relations  in 
life,  so  far  as  I  know.  There  is  no  quarrel  on  between  any  of  them. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Where  is  the  Farmers'  Union?  I  had  a  talk  with  a 
gentleman  a  few  years  ago,  and  I  think  he  told  me  there  was  a  move- 
ment on  foot  whereby  the  Farmers'  Union  and  the  Grange — per- 
haps I  am  mistaken  about  the  Grange — and  the  other  farmers'  unions, 
whatever  they  may  be,  had  formed  an  alliance  with  the  labor  unions. 
and  they  were  all  fighting  in  the  same  direction.  It  is  true  some  were 
producers  and  some  were  consumers,  and  I  think  I  had  the  figures 
as  to  the  membership  of  each  organization  at  that  time,  but  I  think 
they  had  all  settled  down  in  one  happy  family  and  were  all  working 
to  the  same  end  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  You  mean  all  the  farmers'  organizations? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  They  had  intermingled  and  allied  themselves  with  the 
labor  unions. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  357 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  So  far  as  I  know  there  has  been  no  such  attempt. 

Mr.  SMITH.  What  about  the  Buffalo  convention  last  year,  when  Mr. 
(tampers  spoke,  and  Mr.  Townley.  representing  the  Non-Partisan 
League  ?  Did  they  not  pass  resolutions  along  that  line  ? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  I  am  pretty  familiar  with  those  people.  Their 
official  paper  comes  to  our  office  once  a  week.  There  are  a  good  many 
farmers'  organizations  in  this  country,  and  we  have  been  here  longer 
than  any  of  them.  During  these  50  years  we  have  seen  a  good  many 
of  them  turn  their  toes  up  to  the  daisies  and  pass  to  the  happy  be- 
yond, and  we  wrill  probably  be  here  when  some  of  those  that  are  here 
now  have  done  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  farmers'  organizations  have  belonged  to  the 
labor  unions?  Have  not  a  number  of  farmers'  organizations  gone 
into  the  labor  unions,  so  that  they  are  made  up  in  one  organization  \ 
You  say  the  grange  has  not.  Has  not  the  Non-Partisan  League 
done  it  5 

Mr.  BAER.  I  have  never  heard  of  any  direct  affiliation  between  the 
Non-Partisan  League  and  labor.  The  only  thing  is  that  the  Non- 
Partisan  League  has  advocated  certain  legislation  that  labor  was 
sympathetic  toward,  has  indorsed  that  legislation,  agreed  to  vote  for 
it,  and  voted  for  it;  but  they  are  not  joined  in  one  organization. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  did  not  mean  that.  I  thought  there  was  an  allied 
league  among  them  of  some  sort,  where  they  had  all  come  under  one 
tent,  not  in  name,  but  an  organization  so  comprehensive  in  scope 
that  it  took  in  all  these  organizations. 

Mr.  BAER.  I  think  you  are  right  so  far  as  the  farmers'  organiza- 
tions are  concerned.  There  is  a  short  extract  from  the  master's  ad- 
dress at  the  State  grange  of  Washington  this  year,  in  which  he  states 
the  membership  of  the  grange.  I  thought  it  ought  to  be  put  into 
the  record  because  it  is  interesting  to  know  that  in  the  Middle  Wes- 
ern  States  the  granges  are  not  so  strong.  I  will  quote  this  in  the 
record. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  How  long  is  it? 

Mr.  BAER.  Very  short.  This  is  from  the  address  of  William 
Bouck,  who  has  been  reelected  master  of  the  grange  in  Washington. 
I  understand  it  is  about  as  strong  there  as  anywhere  else  in  the  West, 

Thirty-three  State  organizations  are  represented  in  the  National  Grange, 
with  a  combined  membership  of  620.000.  This  membership  is  mainly  in  New 
England,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  and  Michigan.  West  of 
Michigan  the  only  States  of  considerable  membership  are  Kansas,  Colorado, 
Oregon,  and  our  own  State.  This  leaves  the  grange  with  very  poor  membership 
in  the  great  agricultural  States  of  the  Central  West,  and  shows  the  wisdom 
of  granges  getting  together  with  the  great  progressive  farm  organizations  of 
that  section  for  joint  action  in  support  of  a  common  national  legislative  pro- 
gram. While  the  National  Grange  has  not  .joined  us  in  the  Farmers'  National 
Council  or  in  our  Farmers'  National  Headquarters,  through  which  we  are 
working  with  other  grange  organizations,  we  are  glad  to  say  the  present  officers 
are  showing  a  good  spirit  of  cooperation  with  our  headquarters  in  all  legis- 
lative matters  in  which  there  is  common  agreement. 

Later  on  in  his  address,  still  quoting  Mr.  Bouck,  Master  of  Wash- 
ington State  Grange : 

Among  the  farm  organizations  with  which  wo  are  allied  through  our 
national  headquarters  and  the  Fanners'  National  Council  are  the  American 
Society  of  Equity,  the  National  Gleaner  Federation,  the  National  Creamery 
Butter  Makers'  Association,  the  National  Nonpartisan  League,  the  largest  of  the 
State  farmers'  unions,  and.  with  a  few  exceptions,  the  State  granges  with 
which  we  have  been  associated  in  national  work. 


358  HOMES  FOB  SOLDIERS. 

That  is  the  end  of  the  quotation.  So  that,  regardless  of  the  state- 
ment made  before  the  committee  that  the  National  Nonpartisan 
League  did  not  represent  the  grange,  Mr.  Bouck  says  that  they  are 
cooperating  together.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  it  myself. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  had  heard  that  in  so  many  different  ways  I  wanted 
to  find  out  the  truth  of  it. 

Mr.  BAER.  Now,  I  quote  again  from  Mr.  Bouck's  address : 

The  movement  begun  in  this  State  under  the  leadership  of  Brother  Kegley 
to  bring  the  form  and  labor  organizations  together  to  work  for  their  common 
interests  through  a  joint  legislative  committee,  and  in  the  national  field,  also 
under  the  leadership  of  Brother  Kegley,  begun  by  the  progressive  State  granges. 
is  being  taken  hold  of  by  the  progressive  farm  and  labor  organizations 
throughout  the  country.  Thus  one  more  of  the  pioneer  efforts  of  the  Wash- 
ington State  Grange  has  fully  demonstrated  its  importance.  It  is  in  making 
common  cause  in  this  way  that  the  workers  are  winning  their  battles. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  It  is  things  like  that  that  have  gotten  me  confused. 
I  do  not  pretend  to  say  or  know  anything  about  it.  I  beg  your 
pardon,  Mr.  Atkeson,  for  this  interruption. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  have  no  objection  to  being  interrupted. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  It  was  with  no  discourtesy,  but  merely  with  an  in- 
quiring mind. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  have  read  before  what  has  just  been  read.  You 
all  understand  that  the  grange  organization  is  composed  of  sub- 
ordinate granges  or  organizations  down  in  the  schoolhouses  or  coun- 
try churches  and  grange  halls,  and  we  have  grange  halls  running 
all  the  way  from  a  few  dollars,  made  out  of  rough  lumber,  up  to 
$20,000  or  $30,000,  made  of  the  best  lumber  in  the  country.  AVe 
have  county  granges  and  we  have  State  granges,  and  once  a  year  the 
delegates  all  assemble  and  constitute  the  National  Grange.  Indi- 
vidual members,  sometimes  subordinate  granges  or  State  granges, 
get  at  variance  with  the  national  bodv.  That  is  the  failure  of  hu- 
manity, I  reckon.  But  the  National  Grange  in  its  organic  capacity 
is  the  only  organization  that  has  any  authority  to  speak  for  the 
entire  membership  nationally,  just  as  the  National  Congress  deals 
with  national  problems  and  not  with  State  problems. 

Now,  in  our  office  here  we  prepared  a  little  circular  which  has 
been  sent  to  every  Member  of  Congress,  and  in  that  little  booklet 
we  said  just  what  we  meant,  and  I  am  going  to  read  a  couple 
of  paragraphs : 

The  Grange  representatives  are  not  lobbyists  in  the  usually  accepted  mean- 
ing of  that  term,  and  there  are  no  unclean  dollars  paying  us  for  our  service. 

It  costs  the  members  of  our  organization  just  about  1  cent  apiece 
a  year — our  munificent  compensation  in  this  city.  Mr.  Loomis,  my 
associate,  and  I  are  representing  our  membership  very  cheaply. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  get  a  salary  for  your  work,  do  you  not  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir.    To  continue : 

We  are  in  Washington  in  a  spirit  of  helpful  cooperation  in  our  efforts  to  place- 
before  Congress  and  the  various  departments  the  true  farmers'  viewpoint  of 
the  food-production  problems  which  are  now  receiving  so  much  attention,  and 
upon  which  the  welfare  of  all  our  people  so  largely  depends. 

In  a  spirit  of  helpfulness  we  hope  to  go  over  these  rural  problems  with  the 
Members  of  Congress  and  with  congressional  committees  who  have  a  charge 
of  the  measures  affecting  the  interests  of  agriculture  in  order  that  we  may, 
it'  possible,  assist  them  in  arriving  al  a  fair  and  unbiased  understanding  of  the 
problems  and  points  of  view  of  the  real  farmers.  With  this  object  in  view  we 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  359 

will  be  glad  to  have  the  facilities  of  this  office  made  use  of  by  the  Members  of 
Congress  to  the  fullest  extent.  We  extend  a  very  cordial  invitation  to  each 
of  you  to  visit  the  Grange  office  at  any  time. 

Now,  I  have  here  the  journal  of  the  last  National  Grange  session. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Before  you  go  into  that,  let  me  ask  you  this  question 
if  it  does  not  interrupt  you :  Does  your  organization  in  general  con- 
vention assembled,  through  resolution  or  otherwise,  direct  its  execu- 
tive committee,  through  its  president  and  secretary,  to  appear  before 
the  various  committees  in  Congress  to  urge  this  legislation  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  You  mean  to  oppose  the  land  proposition  ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  did  not  answer  my  question. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  did  not  quite  catch  it. 

Mr.  WHITE.  He  asked  you  a  question,  Judge. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  asked  you  if  this  organization  in  convention  as- 
sembled at  any  time  voted,  by  resolution  or  otherwise,  that  the 
executive  committee  or  its  officers  should  advocate  or  oppose  this  pro- 
posed legislation  known  as  the  soldiers'  homestead  bill  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  thought  I  answered  it  that  they  did  vote  to  oppose 
the  Lane  proposition,  and  I  was  going  to  read  the  action  of  the  body 
itself. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  know,  but  you  did  not  answer  my  question.  Outside 
of  this  resolution,  did  they  request  or  direct  that  their  executive  com- 
mittee appear  before  the  various  committees  of  Congress  to  oppose 
this  legislation? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  They  undoubtedly  did.  The  executive  committee 
was  in  this  city  a  week  ago  last  Monday,  Tuesday,  Wednesday,  re- 
peatedly, and  the  body  itself  is  on  record  by  unanimous  vote.  I  want 
to  read  two  or  three  paragraphs  here  in  order  that  we  may  put  this 
organization  squarely  on  this  question. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Just  a  minute,  Mr.  Atkeson.  You  said  "  by  unani- 
mous vote."  Unanimous  vote  of  what  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  The  National  Grange. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  was  at  the  last  meeting? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  was  not  a  dissenting  vote? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Not  a  dissenting  vote.  Now,  before  I  read  this  I 
would  like  this  committee  to  keep  this  fact  in  mind :  That  the  day  I 
arrived  in  Syracuse,  N.  Y.,  to  attend  this  meeting  of  the  National 
Grange  was  the  day  following  the  signing  of  the  armistice,  and  I 
heard  more  noise  than  I  ever  heard  in  my  life  by  the  time  we  struck 
the  city  of  Buffalo,  and  when  we  got  to  the  city  of  Syracuse  it  was 
in  the  forenoon,  and  they  kept  it  up  all  day  and  all  night  and  all  the 
next  day.  Our  organization  assembled  the  next  day,  and  we  were 
the  first  organization  of  any  considerable  number  of  people  to  as- 
semble anywhere  except  to  jolify  for  the  signing  of  the  armistice, 
and  we  undertook  to  deal  with  reconstruction  problems.  We  were 
pretty  near  to  the  end  of  our  turmoil  of  war,  and  these  are  among 
the  things  we  said : 

The  farmers  of  America  ai'e  proud  of  their  part  in  the  world  war.  In 
loyalty  and  devotion,  in  food  production,  in  financial  aid,  and  in  the  gift  of 
their  sons  they  have  again  shown  their  sturdy  Americanism  and  have  justified 
the  confidence  always  reposed  in  them  when  serious  danger  threatens  the 
Republic. 


360  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Just  as  agriculture  ha*  had  a  vital  part  in  the  war.  so  it  must  have  a  strong 
voice  in  the  reconstruction  program  that  is  to  follow.  This  task  is  hardly  less 
gigantic  than  the  great  war  itself  and  will  command  the  hest  thought  of  our 
leaders.  Broad-minded  statesmanship  demands  that  our  entire  citizenship, 
without  distinction  of  class. or  occupation,  shall  unite  in  keeping  the  Nation 
steady  in  the  inevitable  price-leveling  process  that  must  come.  Justice  to  all 
must  accordingly  be  uppermost  in  our  minds,  while  we  insistently  urge  that  the 
interests  of  agriculture  so  fundamental  to  the  prosperity  of  the  whole  Nation 
must  he  safeguarded  ai  every  point. 

Holding  the  first  national  gathering  of  farmers  since  peace  has  become 
definitely  assured,  it  is  clearly  The  duty  of  the  National  Grange  as  a  recognized 
spokesman  of  the  organized  farmers  of  America  to  state  clearly  and  forcefully 
the  needs  and  demands  of  agriculture  in  the  program  of  readjustment.  To 
fail  is  to  invite  neglect  and  to  merit  contempt. 

We  therefore  present  the  following  statements  and  recommendations  as  a 
platform  upon  which  the  fanners  of  the  country  may  stand  as  a  program  of 
reconstruction  with  confidence  that  their  interests  arc  carefully  safeguarded 
and  their  welfare  assured. 

Profitable  agriculture :  Profitable  agriculture  is  the  keynote  of  our  declaration. 
A  prosperous  and  progressive  agriculture  with  an  independent,  self-respecting 
citizenship  in  the  open  country  is  the  surest  guaranty  of  an  enduring  national 
life.  Farming  must  be  made  as  profitable  as  any  other  occupation  involving 
the  same  amount  of  investment,  business  ability,  and  hard  work  or  our  de- 
mocracy must  fail  and  our  people  go  hungry. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Right  in  that  connection,  I  would  like  to  get  this  in- 
formation: I  understand  this  organization  in  convention  assembled 
passed  a  resolution  which  in  part  you  have  read  before  the  committee. 
That  part  opposes  soldiers'  homesteads  or  the  settlement  plan.  That 
is  right,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now.  the  executive  committee  has  opened  headquarters 
in  Washington.  Through  what  source  is  this  paid  ? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  How  is  that? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Who  pays  for  the  executive  committee's  headquarters? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  It  is  paid  out  of  the  funds  of  the  National  (•range. 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  National  Grange  voted  to  do  that  ? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  it  also  paid  the  salaries  of  the  president  and  secre 
tary  and  executive  officers  while  here  in  Washington  preparing  to 
oppose  this  legislation? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  This  was  a  mere  incident — 

Mr.  RAKER  (interposing).  I  know,  but  you  are  not  answering  the 
direct  question.  That  is  right,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  ATKESOXT.  That  is  one  reason;  but  we  regarded  this  whole 
proposition  from  any  standpoint  as  of  minor  importance  compared 
with  matters  like  merchant  marine  and  the  railroad  question,  and 
many  other  question  which  you  gentlemen  will  have  to  deal  with  and 
which  I  am  going  to  take  up  and  hope  to  talk  to  this  and  other  com- 
mittees on. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is,  in  addition  to  opposing  this  legislation? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  This  is  a  mere  incident.  We  did  not  come  to  do  this 
and  nothing  else. 

The  CHAIRMAXT.  Just  a  moment,  Mr.  Atkeson.  How  much  time  do 
you  think  you  will  require? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  Oh,  I  can  quit  at  any  time. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No:  I  do  not  want  you  to  quit.  I  wanted  to  sug- 
gest that  you  be  allowed  to  conclude  your  remarks  before  questions  are 
put  to  you. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  361 

Mr.  ATKESON.  How  much  time  may  I  have?  It  is  just  15  minutes 
after  12. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  can  take  your  own  time,  but  I  want  to  get 
some  idea  of  how  long  a  time  you  wanted. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  May  we  find  out  what  is  going  on  in  the  House  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  are  trying  to  arrange  for  debate  on  the 
Army  appropriation  bill. 

Mi'.  ATKESON.  I  came  up  here  the  other  day  entirely  unprepared 
to  talk  on  this  bill. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  want  to  give  you  all  the  time  you  want,  but 
we  have  to  make  some  arrangement  about  Members  going  over  on 
the  floor. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  can  take  30  minutes.     Can  you  give  me  30  minutes  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  we  can.  Then  we  will  interrogate  you 
afterwards? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Just  at  your  pleasure.  Above  everything  else  I 
want  to  put  this  organization  fairly  before  this  committee.  Every- 
thing we  say  and  do  is  in  absolute  good  humor. 

The  action  of  the  National  Grange  in  establishing  headquarters 
here  reads  as  follows : 

Whereas  the  emergencies  now  confronting  our  country,  and  especially  our 
agricultural  industry,  make  it  imperative  that  the  National  Grange  should  have 
a  duly  accredited  representative  at  the  National  Capital — 

Now,  there  are  other  people  here  claiming  to  represent  the  farmers, 
and  they  do  it,  but  they  do  not  represent  the  National  Grange. 

Therefore  be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  executive  committee  is  hereby  instructed  to  immediately 
establish  grange  headquarters  in  Washington  City,  under  such  safeguards  and 
conditions  as  they  may  deem  expedient,  with  due  regard  for  the  protection  of 
the  character  and  good  name  of  the  grange. 

Second.  That  the  sum  of  $10,000,  or  so  much  thereof  as  may  be  necessary,  is 
hereby  appropriated  for  the  maintenance  of  said  headquarters.  All  bills  to  be 
approved  and  paid  as  other  bills  against  the  National  Grange  are  paid. 

Third.  That  said  headquarters  shall  be  under  the  direction  and  control  of 
the  executive  committee,  and  may  be  discontinued  at  any  time  at  their  dis- 
cretion. 

Fourth.  That  said  headquarters  may,  and  in  our  opinion  should,  cooperate 
with  other  farmers'  organizations  in  support  of  such  policies  or  measures  as  may 
be  mutually  agreed  upon. 

Now,  there  are  some  questions  upon  which  we  may  agree  with 
some  of  these  other  organizations  like  the  Farmers'  Union  and  the 
Society  of  Equity,  and  we  may  mutually  support  them;  there  are 
other  questions  that  are  absolutely  hopeless. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  How  does  your  organization  cooperate  with  the  Non- 
partisan  League ?  Do  you  get  along  together  all  right? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  We  have  not  gone  into  the  Nonpartisan  League 
business.  I  think  the  feeling  of  our  membership  is  that  if  they  can 
get  away  with  it  and  make  good — they  are  pioneers  out  there — the 
whole  world  will  call  them  a  blessing;  but  if  they  fail  to  do  it, 
which  a  few  years  will  demonstrate,  then  they  will  have  to  take  the 
consequences  of  their  state  socialistic  line,  as  wre  call  it,  and  our 
organization  is  in  no  way  socialistic.  I  think  that  is  a  fair  answer. 

I  am  not  going  to  read  this  reconstruction  platform  that  we 
adopted  two  or  three  days  after  the  war  closed,  but  there  were  nine 
gentlemen  constituted  a  special  committee  to  formulate  this  plat- 


362  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

form,  and  I  do  not  know  their  politics,  except  three  or  four  of  them, 
although  I  have  known  them  for  some  time. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  are  their  names  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  L.  H.  Wright,  of  Indiana;  J.  C.  Ketcham,  of  Mich- 
igan; L.  J.  Taber,  of  Ohio;  C.  C.  King,  of  Oklahoma;  W.  J. 
Thompson,  of  Maine;  C.  E.  Spence,  of  Oregon;  S.  J.  Lowell,  of 
New  York;  B.  Needham,  of  Kansas,  and  myself.  They  were  the 
nine  men,  all  masters  of  State  granges,  who  prepared  this  plat- 
form, and  they  were  distributed  from  Maine  to  Oregon,  and  as  be- 
tween political  parties,  so  far  as  I  know,  all  the  parties  were  rep- 
resented. 

There  are  two  or  three  of  these  paragraphs  that  logically  bear 
on  this  question.  I  would  not  take  your  time  to  read  them.  There 
are  two  or  three  that  deal  with  railroads  and  public  highways.  I 
will  just  mention  the  public  highways  and  what  they  have  to  do  with 
our  policy  so  far  as  the  soldiers  are  concerned.  Before  I  go  any 
further  I  want  to  disabuse  your  mind  of  any  thought  that  I  would 
not  do  everything  on  earth  that  can  legitimately  be  done  for  the 
benefit  of  the  soldiers.  It  was  my  fortune  to  have  eight  nephews  in 
the  Army.  Four  went  to  France;  one  of  them  is  buried  there;  one 
is  still  there  in  the  Army ;  the  other  two  have  returned.  The  other 
four  have  been  demobilized ;  they  did  not  get  across.  Some  of  these 
nephews  of  mine  were  farmer  boys,  and  one  of  them,  who  came 
home  a  lieutenant,  is  the  son  of  a  brother  who  is  a  practicing  attor- 
ney and  was  a  candidate  for  Congress  last  year,  and  happened  to  bo 
in  a  district  where  his  political  party  did  not  get  enough  votes,  and 
although  he  is  not  of  the  same  political  party  as  mine  I  do  not  think 
any  the  less  of  him,  because  if  I  had  been  in  the  State  I  would  have 
scratched  my  ticket  and  voted  for  him. 

Now,  speaking  about  the  highway  and  what  it  has  to  do  with  this 
Lane  proposition,  I  want  to  show  that  we  have  duly  considered  the 
question,  not  only  last  November,  but  ever  since  the  Lane  plan  has 
been  proposed. 


The  welfare  of  agriculture  demands  an  aggressive  road-const ru 
by   the   National.    State,   and   local    Governments.      We   demand    t 
funds  shall   not  be  used  in  an  extensive  boulevard  system   to  be 
few,  but  that  market  and  post  roads,  the  highways  over  which 
the  food  supplies  of  a  nation,  be  given  first  consideration.     Such 
roads  will  meet  every  possible  military  need  of  the  future.     Instt 
mental  effort  to  use  returning  soldier  labor  on  doubtful  schemes 


tion  policy 
it  Federal 

*ed  by  the 
mst  travel 

system  of 
d  of  senti- 

drainage. 


irrigation,  etc.,  we  urge  that  road  construction  be  used  as  a  shock  absorber 
against  an  oversupply  of  labor  caused  by  the  return  of  soldiers  from  the  front. 

You  will  certainly  have  the  roads  left  if  they  are  properly  con- 
structed. I  could  read  all  these  paragraphs  in  their  logical  sequence, 
but  I  will  not  inflict  that  upon  you. 

Land  tenantry  is  rapidly  increasing,  farm  property  is  concentrating  in  the 
hands  of  wealthy  landholders,  and  abandoned  farms  are  becoming  altogether 
too  common.  In  the  face  of  these  conditions  every  means  should  be  provided 
to  assist  the  young  man  of  character  and  training  to  secure  a  homestead  of  his 
own.  The  largest  possible  number  of  owners  operating  and  living  on  their 
farms  is  the  surest  guarantee  of  the  perpetuity  of  American  agriculture.  To 
this  end  we  favor  such  modification  of  the  farm  land  bank  law  as  will  extend 
its  benefits  still  more  widely. 

That  is,  in  the  case  of  soldiers  we  will  extend  it  to  the  entire 
amount  instead  of  half. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  363 

We  advocate  the  establishment  of  a  system  of  personal  cooperative  credit 
to  enable  tenant  farmers  and  small-farm  owners  to  extend  their  operations 
and  avail  themselves  of  the  economics  which  command  of  credit  always  affords. 

Now,  regarding  "  farms  for  soldiers  " : 

We  oppose  the  proposed  plan  of  providing  swamp  and  arid  lands,  by  drain- 
age and  irrigation,  for  returning  soldiers  as  unsound  and  impractical  and 
detrimental  to  the  best  interests  of  the  Nation  and  agriculture. 

We  believe  that  is  absolutely  true. 

The  time  may  come  that  will  justify  this  huge  expenditure  of  public  funds, 
but  that  time  is  not  now. 

This  plan  fails  to  take  into  consideration  the  previous  occupations,  desires, 
or  ambitions  of  these  boys  and  the  economic  welfare  of  established  agricultural 
communities. 

There  is  an  abundance  of  unused  and  untenanted  farms  and  available  farm 
lands  near  established  market  centers  to  supply  all  needs  in  this  direction. 
The  Government  should  offer  our  heroic  soldier  boys  who  desire  it  such  help 
as  will  enable  them  to  secure  farm  homes  of  their  own. 

Xow,  in  those  few  paragraphs  you  have  a  rather  systematic  plan. 
Build  roads  as  a  shock  absorber  of  surplus  labor.  I  am  going  to 
make  one  remark  and  then  I  will  be  ready  to  answer  any  questions 
and  be  ready  to  quit. 

Following  the  Civil  War  we  sold  wheat  at  $3.80  a  bushel.  On  that 
same  farm  within  a  few  years  we  sold  wheat  at  50  cents  a  bushel, 
and  my  father  nearly  went  into  bankruptcy ;  not  quite. 

Xow.  if  the  Government  appropriates  a  half  billion  of  money — 
and  it  is  a  wonder  how  it  grows!  It  was  $100,000  and  then  a 
newspaper  article  I  read  figured  it  at  $300,000.  and  when  I  got  Mr. 
MondelPs  bill  it  was  $500,000.  I  am  afraid  to  look  at  anybody  else's 
bill,  because  it  may  be  $1,500.000.  I  do  not  know  where  we  are 
going  to  get  it.  But  this  proposition  is  absolutely  sound:  That  if 
you  undertake  to  drain  any  swamp  land  in  this  country  or  irrigate 
any  arid  land  in  this  country,  at  the  present  scale  of  cost  of  effecting 
that  reclamation,  there  is  not  a  man  living  to-day  who  will  under- 
take to  reimburse  the  Government,  if  the  price  of  food  products 
should  drop  one-half,  which  was  normal  before  the  war,  and  be  able 
to  pay  the  cost  of  that  reclamation,  with  isolated  exceptions,  if  he 
should  live  1.000  years. 

If  we  are  going  to  tax  the  taxpayers  of  this  country  on  a  reclama- 
tion scheme — let  us  put  it  on  that  basis  and  stand  fair  and  square — 
I  do  not  believe  there  is  a  sane  soldier  in  this  country  to-day  who, 
when  these  lands  are  reclaimed,  on  the  present  scale  of  wages  and 
other  costs  of  reclaiming,  which  includes  machinery  and  all  appli- 
ances necessary,  when  asked  to  accept  that  land  and  reimburse  the 
Government,  as  Mr.  Mondell's  bill  provides — well,  he  ought  to  have 
a  place  in  an  insane  asylum  if  he  would  tackle  the  job.  I  have  been 
in  every  State  in  the  country  except  Arkansas,  Oklahoma,  and  New 
Mexico*,  and  when  I  talk  about  farm  problems  I  know  something 
about  what  I  am  talking  about. 

Let  me  tell  a  story :  In  the  days  when  everybody  had  timber  down 
in  our  State  and  the  portable  sawmill  first  came  out,  shiftless  people 
got  this  sawmill  and  went  out  and  cut  up  timber  and  had  a  jolly 
time.  They  got  credit  at  the  local  stores  and  then  went  broke,  and 
the  manufacturer  took  the  sawmill  back  at  a  reduced  payment. 
There  was  an  old  fellow  named  Meeks  who  stuttered,  and  he  had 


364  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

a  little  quarrel  with  a  neighbor  over  some  matter  in  the  store.  The 
old  man  wanted  to  wish  him  the  worst  thing  he  could  think  of.  and 
he  said,  "  I — I — I  wish  you  had  a  sawmill !  D — d — d — damn  you, 
I  wish  you  had  two  sawmills " !  And  if  that  did  not  finish  him 
I  wonder  what  would.  If  our  American  soldiers  want  this  propo- 
sition, all  right,  but  if  I  had  an  enemy  I  would  wish  he  had  one  of 
those  farms,  and  then  I  would  wish  he  had  two  of  them,  and  if  that 
would  not  finish  him,  I  wonder  what  would. 

It  is  an  economic  impossibility,  on  the  present  scale  of  cost  of 
reclamation,  for  any  man  to  take  this  land — I  do  not  care  where  it 
is — and  get  ashore  with  it.  I  say  that,  and  I  have  wrestled  with 
farm  problems  for  65  years.  I  nave  touched  the  farm  problem  at 
more  angles  than  any  other  living  man  in  America.  I  was  raised  on 
a  farm,  engaged  in  productive  farm  industry  from  12  years  of  age, 
on  a  16-hour  basis,  and  spent  five  }rears  as  a  farm  hand  at  75  cents 
a  day,  after  I  was  married.  I  was  a  farm  renter  for  five  years, 
then  bought  a  farm  and  paid  taxes  on  thousands  of  dollars  of  my 
debts,  because  the  land  wras  assessed  at  its  value.  About  the  time 
I  got  that  farm  paid  for  my  State  agricultural  college  invited  me  to 
go  to  the  institution,  where  they  did  not  have  much  agriculture.  I 
went  up  there  to  organize  the  agricultural  department  and  stayed  23 
years.  To-day  they  carry  my  name  in  the  catalogue  as  "  professor 
emeritus."  In  all  that  time  I  never  went  loose  from  that  farm  that 
I  paid  for — five-sixths  of  it — part  of  it  by  day  labor,  part  of  it 
rented,  part  of  it  in  money.  I  say  five-sixths,  because  I  inherited 
one-sixth. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  ready  for  questions  now  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  This  is  a  large  subject.  I  will  answer  your  ques- 
tions now. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  With  reference  to  these  press  notices,  you  said 
you  did  not  know  the  individual  wrho  got  them  out.  Do  you  know 
the  organization  who  is  responsible  for  them  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  For  those  press  notices? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  organi- 
zation. My  own  impression  is  that  it  was  some  enterprising  news- 
paper man. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Just  a  few  more  questions.  I  want  to  see  just  how 
far  we  are  apart.  I  understand  your  organization,  from  its  resolu- 
tions, is  in  favor  of  legislation  to  encourage  farm  home  owning  and 
to  discourage  tenantry.  That  is  true,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  That  is  true. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then  your  organization  says,  in  its  resolution  on 
page  8.  that — 

There  is  an  abundance  of  untenanted  farms  near  market  centers  to  supply  all 
soldiers  who  may  wish  farm  land.  The  Government  should  meet  this  need  in 
this  way,  so  that  they  may  become  self-supporting  and  useful  without  waste 
and  delay. 

The  resolution  you  read  had  the  words  "  unused  and  untenanted 
farms."  That  is  true,  is  it  not?  That  there  are  untenanted  farms 
near  market  centers? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  If  you  will  take  the  trolley  to  Annapolis,  as  I  did 
the  other  day,  you  will  see  something. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  365 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  are  untenanted  lands  between  Washington 
and  Annapolis? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Enough  to  feed  this  city. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  might  be  used  for  soldier  homes? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  Secretary  Lane  agrees  with  you  on  that  and 
agrees  with  your  resolution.  He  says  that  within  50  miles  of  Wash- 
ington there  are  innumerable  farms  that  might  be  used,  and  you 
say  in  your  resolution  that  the  "  Government  should  meet  this  need 
in  this  way." 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  Do  you  know  why  those  lands  are  not  used  and  need 
reclaiming  ?  Some  of  it  is  too  wet  and  some  too  dry. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  I  have  noticed  them  in  the  vicinity  and  be- 
tween here  and  New  York,  and  if  the  farmers  in  the  West  were  in 
this  part  of  the  country  they  would  soon  have  them  under  cultivation. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  The  reason  they  are  not  cultivated  is  that  it  would 
not  pay  to  reclaim  them,  and  if  you  take  the  taxpayers'  money  and 
reclaim  them  and  expect  somebody  to  reimburse  the  Government  you 
will  not  find  many  takers. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  state  in  your  resolution  that  legislation 
should  be  devised  to  encourage  farm  home  owning.  We  are  agreed 
that  far,  that  these  farms  in  the  eastern  section  of  the  country  should 
be  utilized  for  the  soldiers.  Is  that  true? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  That  is  right;  or  in  any  other  section  where  the 
proposition  is  economically  sound.  As  an  extreme  illustration,  I 
could  raise  oranges  on  top  of  Pike's  Peak  or  in  Alaska. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  the  hothouse? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  But  I  could  not  sell  them  for  a  nickel  apiece. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  could  not  raise  them  economically? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  I  could  not  raise  them  economically;  no.  I  could 
raise  apples  in  West  Virginia  but  not  in  Florida. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  when  you  refer  to  reclamation  I  take  it  you 
mean  the  irrigation  of  arid  lands  and  the  drainage  of  swamp  lands? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Or  the  reclaiming  of  any  other  land  that  ordinary 
business  horse  sense  would  not  show  was  a  sane  financial  proposition. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  would  not  do  that  with  land  that  could  not  be 
economically  developed  ? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  And  I  would  not  do  that  with  the  taxpayers'  money. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  the  committee  agrees  with  you  and  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  agrees  with  you,  that  such  land  should  not 
be  taken  up  and  that  only  land  should  be  utilized  that  can  be  economi- 
cally utilized  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  There  is  no  such  land  in  this  country  at  the  present 
cost  of  reclamation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  do  not  think  so? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Not  if  the  food  prices  go  down,  as  I  believe  they 
will. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Referring  to  irrigated  land,  the  farmers  in  my 
district — and  these  men  are  actual  farmers — have  voted  bond  issues 
within  the  last  two  years  of  nearly  $10.000.000  to  irrigate  land  where 
they  now  dry-farm  and  where  they  now  partially  irrigate.  These 
men  are  actual  farmers  and  they  have  sold  within  the  last  year  some- 
thing under  $5.000,000  worth  of  those  bonds.  That  is  for  irrigation 
projects. 


366  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  should  it  appear  that  the  Government  recla- 
mation projects  have  made  a  success  and  are  paying,  would  that  in 
any  way  modify  your  views  that  you  have  expressed  on  irrigation  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Well,  the  Government  is  attempting  to  do  a  .great 
many  things.  The  economic  objection  to  attempting  these  things  now 
is  based  largely  on  the  assumption  that  the  cost  of  reclamation  is 
double  what  it  would  be  under  normal  conditions,  and  that  the 
products  of  a  farm  would  be  half  what  they  are  now.  which  would 
make  it  economically  impossible.  There  is  one  other  objection.  I 
do  not  want  to  omit  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  what  is  it? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  There  is  one  other  objection  that  our  organization 
makes  to  Mr.  Lane's  plan,  and  I  am  glad  you  put  me  in  mind  of  it. 
We  are  opposed  to  the  whole  colonization  scheme  as  radically  un- 
American  and  undemocratic.  It  presupposes  a  sort  of  overlordism. 
The  projects  are  limited  to  5,000  acres  or  more.  It  provides  for  a  lot 
of  Utopian  schemes.  I  have  some  of  Mr.  Lane's  stuff  here,  and  it 
reads  like  a  dream  book. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Let  me  interrupt  you  there.  You  did  not  have 
in  your  convention  any  concrete  bill  before  you  when  you  discussed 
the  matter? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  No,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  discussed  it  from  the  viewpoint  of  some  of 
Secretary  Lane's  exuberant  rhetoric? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  mean  exuberant  from  your  viewpoint. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir.  Now,  we  are  opposed  to  any  form  of  State 
socialism,  to  take  the  taxpayers'  money  and  go  out  and  acquire  Gov- 
ernment land.  This  scheme  provides  for  laying  out  town  lots  and  a 
multitude  of  things,  and  these  soldiers  can  not  even  sell  this  land  if 
they  go  on  it.  You  will  have  to  tie  them  because  they  will  want  to 
abandon  most  of  it  before  the  10-year  period  is  out.  "it  is  based  on 
what  we  regard  as  a  fundamentally  un-American  principle. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  consider  that  there  is  anything  un-Ameri- 
can or  socialistic  about  the  present  reclamation  projects? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  No,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  are  all  in  a  colony,  as  it  were  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  They  are  disposed  of  in  severalty.  The  man  ac- 
quires possession  and  pays  for  it  like  any  other  land. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  contemplated  that  where  large  units  are 
selected  the  same  process  will  go  on  as  is  now  going  on  on  the  Gov- 
ernment reclamation  projects. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  We  had  an  attempt  some  years  ago  in  my  State  to 
establish  a  community.  These  people  were  spiritualists,  and  it  was 
their  religion,  or  lack  of  religion,  that  brought  them  together  with 
common  interest.  They  flourished  for  a  while  and  then  the  com- 
munity was  abandoned. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  this  plan  is  not  like  those  old  colony  plans. 
The  one  that  Hawthorne  was  on — what  was  the  name  of  that  ( 

Mr.  VAILE.  It  was  called  "  Meadow  Brook." 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  realize  that  the  lands  here  are  disposed  of  in 
severally.  They  do  not  work  the  whole  thing  in  community.  Kadi 
man  has  his  own  individual  unit  and  will  eventually  get  a  patent. 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  367 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes;  but  there  is  a  community  of  interest  contem- 
plated in  the  whole  proposition;  for  instance,  about  the  marketing. 
That  is  how  some  of  our  milk  dealers  got  into  trouble  with  the  Sher- 
man law  in  Chicago  when  they  tried  to  sell  their  stuff  in  community. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Does  not  your  organization  approve  of  collective 
selling? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Selling  and  buying. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  "  Wherever  necessary  in  State  or  Nation  to  estab- 
lish beyond  question  the  right  of  producers  of  farm  products  to 
bargain  collectively  for  their  sale."  That  is  what  you  say  in  one  of 
your  resolutions. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  But  that  is  different  from  this  proposition.  You 
take  the  taxpayer's  money  and  invest  it,  whether  it  is  ever  returned 
or  not;  and  if  that  is  not  State  socialism,  we  fail  to  know  what  the 
words  "  State  socialism  "  mean. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  that  is  what  they  are  doing  on  the  Govern- 
ment reclamation  projects.  They  are  spending  money  out  of  the 
Treasury,  from  the  Government  reclamation  fund,  to  build  up  these 
projects.  I  have  never  heard  any  accusation  made  against  that  plan 
as  being  socialistic. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  There  is  a  great  deal  of  argument  against  it.  The 
Government  has  proceeded  on  the  theory  that  the  Government  recla- 
mation projects  will  be  worth  what  they  cost. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  a  question,  if  you  will  pardon 
me.  Have  you  thought  about  a  case  of  this  kind :  A  good  many  sol- 
diers will  come  back  from  the  war  in  your  part  of  the  country,  and 
you  say  you  have  a  large  number  of  abandoned,  unused  farms — 
unoccupied  lands? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  All  over  the  country. 

Mr.  WHITE.  And  that  the  productive  quality  of  the  land  has  depre- 
ciated, and  it  is  not  a  good  dividend-producing  proposition.  Now, 
we  will  suppose  a  young  man  comes  back,  the  son  of  a  poor  farmer, 
who  may  be  poor  for  any  number  of  reasons,  and  he  will  say  to  his 
father :  "  I  would  like  to  buy  one  of  these  farms."  In  case  he  is  not 
able  to  capitalize  it  himself.'do  you  think  it  would  be  a  good  idea  for 
the  Government  to  cooperate  with  him  and  assist  him  with  a  loan  ? 
Had  you  thought  about  that? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  No,  sir;  not  in  furnishing  him  money  but  in  fur- 
nishing him  Government  credit. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  mean  loaning  him  the  money. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  All  through  the  land-bank  discussion  our  organiza- 
tion took  an  active  part,  and  it  was  my  fortune,  or  misfortune,  to 
appear  before  committees  in  support  of  the  land-bank  scheme.  I 
made  this  argument  and  I  cited  this  specific  case.  We  insisted  that 
we  should  loan  these  purchasers  more  than  50  cents  on  the  dollar, 
and  that  was  finally  written  in  the  law. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  stated  a  while  ago  you  would  rather  have 
full  value  than  half? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  That  was  for  the  soldier,  so  that  the  soldier  could 
go  out  and  find  land  wherever  he  wanted  it,  and  wherever  he  found 
it  the  Government  would  give  him  credit  and  sell  bonds.  Mr. 
Morgan  stated  the  other  day  that  he  had  a  proposition  in  his  bill 
that  would  be  worthy  of  consideration — 
333319—19 24 


368  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  WHITE  (interposing).  I  want  to  know  your  view  on  it,  Mr. 
Atkeson.  I  made  my  question  hypothetical,  but  it  is  not  hypothetical 
because  it  is  absolutely  true.  There  will  be  hundreds  of  instances 
of  this  kind.  I  am  not  stating  my  views,  but  I  would  like  to  have 
yours  if  you  are  ready  to  express  them. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  cite  this  case :  Assuming  that  you  leave  the  land- 
bank  laws  as  they  now  stand;  that  a  gentleman  has  three  sons  and  a 
fairly  good  farm  for  one,  but  they  all  want  a  farm.  I  know  of  hun- 
dreds of  those  cases.  He  is  out  of  debt ;  his  farm  is  worth  say  $20,- 
000.  He  gives  a  mortgage  on  his  farm  for  $10,000  and  tells  his  son 
to  buy  a  farm  as  good  as  that. 

Mr.  WHITE.  That  is  distorting  the  question.  My  proposition  is 
where  he  is  the  son  of  a  poor  farmer,  where  he  would  have  to  go  to 
the  city,  when  we  are  trying  to  keep  them  out  of  the  city  and  in 
the  country.  If  my  question  is  not  clear,  it  is  all  right,  but  I  would 
be  glad  to  have  your  view.  Of  course,  I  have  no  right  to  insist  on 
it ;  I  want  to  be  polite. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  In  the  resolution  I  read  we  said  we  recommended 
some  system  of  personal  credit  where  a  man's  character,  skill,  and 
industry  should  be  utilized  to  make  it  possible  for  him  to  acquire 
land,  and  that  is  dealing  with  the  question  of  land  tenantry.  Give 
the  man  a  fighting  chance.  Help  him  all  you  can  by  loaning  him 
the  Government  credit,  but  not  the  taxpayer's  money.  There  is  a 
great  difference  between  those  two  things — the  Government  credit 
and  the  taxpayer's  money.  I  know  by  experience  that  it  is  easier  to 
spend  other  .people's  money. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Atkeson,  right  there,  the  difference  between 
you  and  the  Mondell  bill  is  a  difference  in  plan.  You  believe  in  the 
plan  of  securing  farms  for  soldiers? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Wherever  they  want  them. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Through  the  medium  of  the  land  bank? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then,  it  is  just  a  difference  in  principle? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  was  wondering  why  you  set  down  different  plans 
in  your  resolutions.  Your  first  resolution,  on  page  8  of  your  little 
pamphlet 

Mr.  ATKESON  (interposing).    Yes;  those  are  only  summaries. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  says :  "  Better  farm  credit :  Every  possible 
means  should  be  provided  to  assist  men  of  character  and  training  to 
secure  farm  homes  and  to  establish  a  system  of  personal  credit  for 
the  purpose  of  increasing  farm  ownership.  To  this  end  we  favor 
such  amendment  of  the  land-bank  law  as  will  extend  its  benefits 
more  widely."  There  you  refer  especially  to  the  land-bank  law. 
Then,  again:  "Land  tenantry:  Land  tenantry  is  increasing;  farm 
ownership  is  concentrating  in  the  hands  of  wealthy  landholders,  and 
abandoned  farms  are  becoming  too  common.  Legislation  should  be 
devised  to  encourage  farm-home  owning,  and  to  discourage  land  spec- 
ulation and  tenantry."  You  say  nothing  in  this  resolution  about  the 
land  bank,  but  you  say  that  "  legislation  should  be  devised."  Do 
you  mean  additional  legislation,  in  addition  to  the  land-bank  legis- 
lation? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  have  been  asked  by  congressional  committees  and 
general  assemblies  as  to  what  was  the  growing  evil — 


HOMES   FOK  SOLDIERS.  369 

The  CHAIRMAN  (interposing).  I  do  not  want  to  interrupt  you,  but 
I  want  to  know  the  meaning  of  this  second  paragraph,  because  in 
the  preceding  paragraph  you  say  we  should  utilize  the  land-bank 
law,  and  in  the  next  one  you  say  that  legislation  should  be  devised. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  That  means  to  interfere  with  or  prevent  as  far  as 

Csible  by  legislation  the  acquirement  and  holding  of  agricultural 
d  by  nonresident  landholders.     If  I  had  the  time  I  would  tell 
you  some  things  that  pehaps  you  are  not  aware  of  in  that  connec- 
tion.   More  than  half  of  the  best  farms  in  this  country  are  culti- 
vated by  tenants  and  owned  by  men  living  away  from  them. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  mean  absentee  landlords? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  In  the  hands  of  landlords  who  live  in  the  city.  It- 
should  be  feasible  by  legislation  to  remedy  that  condition.  l"have 
never  been  able  to  conceive  of  any  remedy  beside  the  graduated  land 
tax. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then,  in  your  last  resolution,  on  page  8,  you  refer 
to  the  unused  and  untenanted  farms,  and  say  that  the  "  Government 
should  meet  this  need  in  this  way."  What  kind  of  legislation  would 
your  organization  approve,  or  what  did  you  have  in  contemplation 
when  you  enacted  that  resolution?  What  would  you  do  to  supply 
these  soldiers  with  untenanted  farms  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  We  had  nothing  but  the  land-bank  law. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Just  the  land  bank? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes ;  but  we  recommended  the  extension  of  the  land 
bank  law  to  include  soldiers,  so  that  John  Smith  and  myself  could 
not  get  a  certain  amount  of  land  until  we  got  half  of  the  money. 
Now,  if  I  had  to  extend  that  scheme  to  the  soldiers  I  am  ready  to 
do  it, 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  believe  that  there  is  any  exceptional 
opportunity  extended  to  the  soldier  in  this  measure — any  unusual 
opportunity  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  In  our  proposition? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  No ;  in  this  bill. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  do  not  know.  I  have  not  studied  it  closely  enough 
to  answer  that  question.  This  is  purely  a  reclamation  proposition. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Here  is  a  hypothetical  question  and  I  would  like  to 
have  you  answer:  Here  is  a  farm  between  Washington  and  An- 
napolis containing  160  acres.  It  has  a  fair  house  on  it,  somewhat 
in  want  of  repair.  It  has  sufficient  outbarns,  20  or  25  acres  under 
cultivation,  and  the  rest  is  grown  up  in  brush,  shrubbery,  etc.  It 
is  being  cultivated  but  little;  20  acres  partially  and  the  rest  of  it 
is  not  under  cultivation.  It  is  cultivable  land  and  will  produce 
a  good  crop.  A  young  returning  soldier  comes  along  and  wants  to 
buy  that.  Its  actual  value  is  $5,000  in  the  market.  It  is  your  pur- 
pose now  that  the  law  should  be  amended  so  that  he  may  get  the 
Government  credit  whereby  he  could  buy  that  farm  and  let  the  Gov- 
ernment stand  sponsor  for  his  credit,  to  the  end  that  he  might  take 
up  the  farm?  Is  that  the  theory?  Is  that  what  you  believe  ought 
to  be  done? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  think  that  would  be  vastly  better  for  the  soldier 
and  better  for  the  taxpayer  than  the  present  proposition. 

Mr.  VAILE.  You  would  favor  it  as  regards  a  farm  between  here 
and  Annapolis,  but  not  as  between  places  in  the  West  or  between 
places  in  the  South  ? 


370  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Let  the  soldier  determine  where  he  wants  to  live, 
without  being  colonized. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Then,  if  the  soldier  was  willing  to.  choose  a  farm  in 
Colorado  or  California — 

Mr.  ATKESON  (interposing).  It  would  not  make  any  difference. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Your  objection  to  irrigation  or  drainage  would  not 
apply  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Take  another  illustration :  If  the  same  kind  of  farm 
was  anywhere  the  young  man  wanted  it,  in  any  other  State  in  the 
Union,  under  like  conditions  you  would  say  amend  the  law  whereby 
he  might  take  it  up  and  get  the  Government  credit  to  back  the 
farm.  Is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir;  and  for  the  machinery  you  already  have 
the  appraisers  and  land  bank  officials. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well ;  that  is  the  machinery  to  work  it  out.  I  want 
to  get  your  idea. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  That  does  not  look  like  we  are  afraid  of  competi- 
tion. We  are  perfectly  ready. 

Mr.  RAKER.  If  the  soldier  wants  to  get  40,  60,  or  100,  or  200  acres 
of  land,  I  want  to  know  if  it  is  your  belief  or  theory  that  he  should 
be  given  the  opportunity  to  obtain  that  piece  of  land  wherever  he 
wants  it,  anywhere  in  the  United  States,  under  like  conditions  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir;  right  in  the  neighborhood  where  he  was 
reared. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  do  not  care  where  it  is. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Well,  I  will  say  any  place,  wherever  he  wants  to 
locate  land,  except  picking  him  up  and  colonizing  him  where  he 
does  not  want  to  go. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  let  me  go  a  little  further. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Suppose  there  is  a  tract  of  land  of  100,000  acres,  where 
500  families  may  be  placed,  where  the  money  invested  in  putting  it  in 
shape  for  cultivation  will  make  it  an  attractive  home  for  the  soldier, 
and  the  money  invested  is  not  in  excess  of  what  would  be  a  reasonable 
expenditure  to  put  that  land  in  shape.  Do  you  object  to  putting  that 
100,000  acres  of  land  in  that  condition  so  that  these  500  soldiers  may 
go  on  there  and  make  their  homes,  if  the  conditions  are  favorable  as 
to  climate,  soil,  and  the  price  for  which  it  may  be  done  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  We  object  to  making  our  sympathy  for  the  soldier 
or  our  desire  to  benefit  the  soldier  a  pretext  for  reclamation. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  have  not  put  any  sympathy  into  my  question.  I  am 
just  as  cold-blooded  as  a  snake  in  asking  this  question.  Assuming 
that  you  answered  the  other  question  as  to  160  acres  located  anywhere, 
what  distinction  is  there  if  you  take  that  160  acres  and  give  him  the 
sole  right  to  select  it?  Is  there  any  difference  between  that  proposi- 
tion and  taking  100,000  acres  and  allowing  500  men  to  select  it? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  There  is  no  difference  in  principle. 

Mr.  RAKER.  If  this  100,000  acres  is  good  agricultural  land  and 
will  produce  good  crops  and  can  be  put  in  cultivation  without  any 
extraordinary  expense,  is  there  any  objection  in  your  mind  to  putting 
that  100,000  acres  in  cultivation,  so  that  the  soldier  might  take  it  if 
he  wants  it? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  371 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  None  whatever  if  the  soldier  wants  it.  The  last 
Reclamation  Record  gives  in  tabular  form  the  crop  report  of  King 
Hill  project.  Idaho,  for  last  year.  I  will  take  the  subject  of  wheat, 
because  most  people  know  wheat.  Production  of  wheat,  $4  an  acre; 
income,  $7.48.  I  will  bet  $7.48  would  not  pay  for  putting  water  on  it. 

The  CIIAIRMAX.  What  project  is  that? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  King  Hill  project. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  King  Hill 
project  ? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  Xo.  sir;  not  personally. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well  let  me  tell  you  this.  Wheat  raising  is  not 
the  ordinary  crop  on  a  Government  reclamation  project.  They  gen- 
erally raise  alfalfa. 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  Yes.  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  Xow,  King  Hill  project  is  one  that  has  recently 
been  taken  over  by  the  Government.  It  is  not  completed.  It  was  a 
defunct  project  under  the  Carey  Act.  They  did  not  have  enough 
money  to  put  it  on  its  feet  and  complete  it.  and  the  Government,  I 
think,  in  the  sundry  civil  bill  of  last  year,  made  an  appropriation  to 
take  it  over.  That  is  the  history  of  the  King  Hill  project. 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  Alfalfa  is  a  semiarid  plant.  That  is,  it  is  grown  in 
a  semiarid  climate. 

I  just  want  to  get  these  figures  in  the  record.  Taking  all  the 
products  on  that  project,  the  total  income  per  acre — total  and  aver- 
age— is  $27.18  on  that  whole  project.  Xow  we  will  turn  over  to  the 
prevailing  crop  prices  on  land  in  the  Yellowstone  project  in  Mon- 
tana and  North  Dakota — it  is  in  both  States — in  1918.  The  wheat 
yield  of  this  project  was  15  bushels  an  acre,  which -is  the  average  for 
the  country,  but  the  total  acreage,  which  includes  the  production  of 
alfalfa  at  *33  an  acre  and  alfalfa  seed  at  $66  an  acre — the  total  pro- 
duction of  those  acres  in  that  project  was  $31.85.  The  crop  on  the 
Yellowstone  project  in  Montana  and  Xorth  Dakota — that  seems  to 
be  the  same  project — was  $11.39.  That  seems  to  be  the  same  thing. 
The  crop  report  for  the  Xewell  project  in  Nevada  shows  a  total 
average  of  $53.15. 

Xow.  we  have  undertaken  to  ascertain  what  it  has  cost  per  acre 
in  these  reclamation  projects.  Mr.  Lane  does  not  give  us  any 
figures.  We  have  tried  through  the  Reclamation  Service  and  we  feel 
absolutely  certain  that  there  is  not  a  single  one  of  these  proposition.-) 
that  is  a'  paying  proposition.  I  have  been  on  some  isolated  fruit 
farms  that  are  abandoned,  in  Colorado 

The  CHAIRMAX.  Xame  one. 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  I  do  not  recall  the  name.  There  was  one  over  be- 
yond the  hills. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  What  was  the  nearest  town? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  Salida  was  the  nearest  town,  I  think. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  Salida  was  the  nearest  town? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  the  nearest  town. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  What  year  were  you  there? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  I  think  I  was  there' in  1915. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  thera 
is  an  irrigation  project  in  my  district  of  200.000  acres  that  in  1918 
averaged  $150  an  acre  income.  There  is  another  of  3.000  acres  in 


372  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

my  district  the  income  of  which  is  stated  to  be  $280  an  acre.  I  be- 
lieve it  is  only  fair  to  the  arid  lands,  when  you  select  some  that  have 
had  the  very  lowest  possible  productions,  that  some  others  should  be 
put  in  comparison  with  them. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Those  are  only  four  that  Mr.  Lane  selected. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  You  were  quoting  on  the  production  of  wheat  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  took  all  the  other  products,  too. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Then  that  is  fair.  That  is  what  I  have  done  in 
quoting  my  figures.  I  want  you  to  bear  in  mind  the  $150  from  200.000 
acres  and  the  $28Q  from  3,000  acres.  So  that  there  are  high  and  low 
productions  in  irrigated  land  the  same  as  in  nonirrigated  land. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Do  you  know  the  altitude  of  the  land  which  you  referred 
to  as  abandoned  fruit  farms  in  Colorado?  You  said  they  were  near 
Salida. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  It  was  in  that  section  of  Colorado.  We  stopped 
there  a  day  on  our  way  to  Salt  Lake  City,  and  I  can  not  recall  exactly. 
Salida  was  the  place  where  people  Avere  getting  on,  and  they  said  they 
were  abandoning  those  lands.  After  water  had  been  put  on  for  a  few 
years  and  it  soaked  down,  and  by  capillary  action  some  alkali  came  to 
the  surface,  and  they  were  abandoned. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Do  you  know  what  railroad  facilities  they  had  in  thai 
part  of  the  country  for  getting  their  produce  to  the  markets  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Well,  we  were  on  the  line  of  the  Missouri  Pacific. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Did  you  have  any  opportunity  to  compare  those  lands 
on  the  western  slope  which  are  still  selling  for  $1.000  an  acre  and 
upward  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  No,  sir ;  I  was  not  out  there  on  that  business. 

Mr.  VAILE.  This  is  the  second  or  third  time  that  you  have  referred 
to  abandoned  farms  in  Colorado,  and  I  am  frank  to  say  I  do  not  know 
where  they  are.  Now,  you  said  your  organization  favored  the  exten- 
sion of  the  land-bank  law  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Did  you  mean  by  that  that  you  favored  the  increase  of 
facilities  for  loaning  money  to  farmers? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Not  to  farmers  generally.  Our  proposition  is  that 
if  we  are  going  to  do  something  for  the  soldiers,  we  should  do  it 
through  this  organized  machinery  of  the  Government.  You  do  not 
take  the  taxpayers'  money,  but  you  sell  bonds. 

Mr.  VAILE.  But  it  does  involve  advancing  cash  to  the  farmers. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Well,  you  would  sell  bonds. 

Mr.  VAILE.  It  involves  loaning  cash  to  the  farmers. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  But  that  is  not  the  Government's  money. 

Mr.  BAER.  The  Government  has  to  secure  those  bonds.  It  is  the 
Government's  credit  that  you  want  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BAER.  The  Government  would  have  to  pay  those  bonds  if  the 
project  failed? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  If  you  are  familiar  with  the  land-bank  system,  a 
man  can  pay  half  the  purchase  price  if  the  land-bank  appraiser  de- 
cides that  is  a  fair  price,  and  he  can  borrow  the  other  half  and  have 
36  years  to  pay  for  it. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Would  it  be  your  suggestion  that  the  farmer  should  be 
allowed  to  borrow  a  larger  amount  than  half  ? 


HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS.  373 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  That  is  for  the  soldier  only.  I  think  that  50  cents 
on  the  dollar  is  not  enough.  In  normal  times  50  per  cent  on  the  pres- 
ent valuation  may  be  too  high,  but  that  depends  on  the  appraiser. 
When  the  land-bank  law  was  enacted  it  could  have  been  made  75 
per  cent.  Every  time  the  man  makes  a  payment,  every  six  months, 
you  will  have  a  much  better  security.  Now/if  the  Government  wants 
to  show  its  generosity,  without  any  reference  to  socialization,  coloni- 
zation, or  a  lot  of  other  "  izations  "  that  we  are  opposed  to,  they  can 
say  to  the  soldier :  "  You  can  settle  anywhere  you  want  to  live,  in 
your  own  State  " 

Mr.  VAILE  (interposing).  Or  anywhere  else? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  Anywhere  he  wants  to  in  the  United  States,  because 
I  would  not  want  him  to  leave  the  United  States.  He  contracts  for 
it  in  advance ;  the  Government  sees  that  the  title  is  good  and  that  the 
land  is  worth,  say,  $10,000.  The  Government  will  take  very  little  risk 
if  the  Government  guarantees  bonds  under  the  land-bank  system,  if 
you  are  familiar  with  the  land-bank  system. 

Mr.  VAILE.  It  is  based  on  the  credit  of  the  land  ultimately  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  Yes,  sir.  The  only  risk  would  be  the  difference  be- 
tween what  was  paid  for  the  land  and  what  the  Government  would 
get  for  it  if  it  was  forfeited.  Every  time  he  made  a  payment  he 
would  be  liquidating  part  of  the  debt,  and  it  would  be  better  and 
better  security.  He  can  sell  that  land  at  any  time  he  pleases,  and  his 
successor  simply  steps  into  his  shoes  and  takes  up  the  payments. 

Mr.  VAILE.  If  your  suggestion  is  that  the  land  bank  should  be  able 
to  loan  to  the  soldier  a  greater  percentage  of  the  value  of  the  land  he 
occupies.  I  can  not  see  any  difference  between  that  plan  and  the 
Mondell  bill,  except  that  under  the  Mondell  bill  there  is  no  provision 
that  it  shall  be  through  the  land  bank,  and  it  does  not  provide  for 
alienation  except  within  a  certain  period  of  time.  Is  there  any  differ- 
ence? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  There  is  very  vital  difference.  One  provides  for  the 
taxpayer's  money  and  the  other  is  based  on  the  Government's  credit. 
If  the  prices  of  "farm  products  should  go  down  one-half,  it  would 
become  an  economic  impossibility  for  the  majority  of  those  farmers 
to  get  their  money  to  pay  off  the  debt.  The  soldiers  are  either  crazy, 
if  they  undertake  to  do  it,  or  bamboozled  into  a  wild-cat  scheme  that 
they  never  can  get  ashore  with,  in  the  majority  of  cases. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  safeguards  of  this  proposi- 
tion that  have  been  developed  by  the  chairman  of  the  committee  in 
these  hearings? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  Yes,  sir ;  I  have  read  the  bill  there. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Do  you  still  think  there  is  danger  of  using  too  much  of 
the  taxpayer's  money? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  On  this  level  and  the  question  of  the  purchaser 
being  able  to  sell  his  products  on  the  other  level. 

Mr.  BAER.  I  think  I  am  in  sympathy  with  some  of  your  ideas,  Mr.  At- 
keson.  That  yon  want  to  see  these  soldiers  given  the  land  that  they 
want:  that  there  shall  not  beany  forcing  of  men  on  land  that  they  do 
not  desire.  Xow,  before  the  appropriation  is  made  I  recognize  that  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  will  have  to  bring  before  the  committee  a 
statement  of  so  many  thousand  soldiers  who  have  already  volitionally 
declared  in  which  direction  they  want  to  go ;  that  is,  in  which  State 


374  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIEES. 

they  want  to  settle  on  a  farm.  It  is  purely  optional  where  the 
soldiers  want  to  go.  If  they  decide  on  1,000  farms  in  Pennsylvania 
or  1,000  farms  in  Colorado,  then  we  are  not  going  to  develop  more 
land  than  they  require.  Your  position  seems  to  be  that  we  are  going 
out  and  arbitrarily  take  100,000  acres  of  land  and  then  force  the 
soldier  to  that  land.  My  idea  is  just  the  reverse;  that  we  are  going 
to  ask  the  soldier  where  he  wants  to  go,  and  if  one  wants  to  go  to 
Colorado  we  are  going  to  develop  lands  there,  and  that  will  be  right 
in  accord  with  your  views. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  It  isn't  pleasant  to  discuss  the  Secretary's  returns 
from  the  soldiers,  but  I  have  talked  with  several  hundred  soldiers 
within  the  last  six  months  and  I  have  not  found  a  single  soldier  yet, 
when  this  proposition  was  put  to  him,  who  would  say  that  he  ex- 
pected to  occupy  one  of  those  farms.  He  would  go  out  there  and  go 
to  work  at  $7  and  $7  a  day  to  reclaim  one  of  those  farms ;  but  if  you 
want  to  tie  him  to  an  impossibility 

Mr.  BAER.  We  don't  tie  him  to  an  impossibility.   He  has  a  choice. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  But  you  have  spent  the  taxpayer's  money  reclaiming 
those  lands,  which  is  not  economically  possible. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  West  Virginia  is  your  State? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  will  say  that  432  soldiers  have  already  written  in 
favorable  to  the  proposition  from  West  Virginia. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  They  don't  understand  the  proposition. 

Mr.  BAER.  If  they  want  the  farm,  they  should  have  it.  As  I  under- 
stand you  in  this  plan,  Mr.  Lane  is  to  find  out  where  the  soldiers  want 
to  go  before  we  develop  that  land. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Certainly. 

Mr.  BAER.  In  regard  to  the  Federal  farm-loan  bank.  I  have  been 
interested  in  the  same  proposition  Mr.  Atkeson  is — in  extending 
credit;  but  so  far  as  the  liability  goes,  if  the  price  of  farm  produce 
goes  down  one-half  in  the  future,  as  you  predict  it  may  do,  then  there 
is  just  as  much  of  a  risk.  He  has  got  his  money  out  of  the  Federal 
farm-loan  bank  as  if  he  had  it  out  of  some  other  appropriation  in 
Congress,  because  that  makes  an  inability  for  him  to  meet  the  pay 
ments,  and  consequently  the  Government  has  to  back  up  the  Federal 
farm-loan  bank  as  well  as  it  would  an  appropriation,  and  they  would 
lose  the  money  anyway,  so  the  sort  of  credit  don't  make  any  difference 
whether  it  comes  from  one  department  or  the  other  department.  But 
the  point  that  you  make  that  the  machinery  is  already  established  in 
the  farm-loan  bank  is  a  good  point,  but  it  is  the  taxpayer's  money,  no 
matter  which  way  you  go. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  'it  is  the  taxpayer's  money  in  one  place,  and  it  is  the 
taxpayer's  money  whether  you  ever  pay  it  back  or  not. 

Mr.  BAER.  The  soldier  has  got  to  pay  this  back  into  the  Treasury. 
It  is  a  sort  of  revolving  fund. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  It  isn't  unreasonable  to  expect  that  by  the  time  these 
lands  can  be  made  available  for  production  that  the  prices  of  farm 
produce  in  this  country  will  be  one-half  as  high  as  they  are  now.  I 
would  like  to  see  that  if  other  things  are  relatively  as  low.  We  can't 
continue  at  this  high  rate.  If  you  reclaim  these  lands  on  the  present 
level  of  prices,  it  is  impossible  for  them  to  pay  on  that  basis.  Farm 
products  are  not  very  largely  increased  from  what  they  were  before  the 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  375 

war.  In  some  places  they  have,  but  the  normal  increase  has  not  been 
more  than  25  per  cent  of  the  farm  land. 

It  would  be  impossible  for  the  Government  to  lose  any  very  great 
amount  of  money,  largely  because  there  would  be  very  few  soldiers 
availing  themselves  of  it.  I  know  when  I  say  that  that  the  figures  the 
Secretary  has  are  in  the  air.  You  get  down  with  the  boys — 

Mr.  BAER.  I  have  talked  with  250,000  of  them  in  the  camps  from 
tidewater  to  Bridgeport  since  last  May — 

Mr.  ATKESON  (interposing).  They  were  all  for  it? 

Mr.  BAEK.  Xo;  I  don't  think  more  than  16  per  cent  of  them  wanted 
iarms,  but  the  point  is  that  those  that  do  want  farms  are  agreeable 
with  you — they  want  to  make  their  own  choice.  If  we  have  farms 
over  in  West  Virginia  and  these  fellows  want  these  farms,  the  Gov- 
ernment should  extend  credit  to  them  to  buy  the  farms.  I  would 
go  a  little  further.  If  they  were  farms  that  Avere  run  down,  I  would 
extend  credit  to  resuscitate  the  farms  just  as  we  would  in  Colorado. 
If  they  want  a  farm  there  in  the  State  of  Colorado,  which  is  to  be 
irrigated,  I  would  irrigate  it,  so  it  would  be  just  about  the  same  to 
extend  them  credit  for  fertilizer  to  resuscitate  the  soil  which  would 
cost  about  as  much ;  the  same  as  they  would  in  Xorth  Dakota ;  and 
it  would  all  fall  back  on  the  Government,  and  the  Government  would 
have  to  back  up  the  guaranty  when  it  was  in  the  Federal  reserve 
bank  or  farm  loan  bank  or  some  other  bank. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  But  in  this  proposition  we  lose  sight  of  two  basic 
facts.  One  of  them  is  that  the  farms  now  are  underfarmed,  because 
they  are  undermanned,  and  other  farms  are  not  farmed  at  all  simply 
because  under  present  conditions  they  have  not  the  boys  to  farm 
them.  There  is  hardly  a  farm  in  the  United  States  to-day  that  has 
man  power  on  them  to  farm  them  adequately.  There  isn't  a  soldier 
in  the  United  States  to-day  that  can't  get  a  farm-labor  job  at  $2.50 
a  day  ,,on  the  farm.  They  ought  to  do  that  a  year  or  two  before  they 
attempt  any  of  these  "  wildcat "  schemes  any  way. 

Mr.  BAER.  I  don't  like  to  hear  you  say  "  wildcat "  schemes,  because 
we  are  pretty  well  agreed  that  wherever  the  soldier  wants  to  go — 

Mr.  ATKESON  (interposing).  It  is  unnecessary. 

Mr.  BAER.  It  is  unnecessary  if  the  soldier  don't  want  it,  but  if  the 
soldier  expresses  a  desire  to  go  to  a  certain  place,  they  are  aware  of 
the  fact  that  there  are  farmers  in  the  community  making  a  success  on 
those  farms,  or  they  wouldn't  be  disposed  to  go  there. 

Mr.  VAILE.  The  real  gist  of  your  argument  is  that  you  are  opposed 
to  any  sort  of  reclamation  schemes? 

Mr.  ATKESOX.  At  this  time ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BAER.  In  regard  to  that,  I  said  to  Secretary  Lane  that  there 
were  certain  farms  in  the  West  that  would  be  very  expensive,  and  to 
be  practical  we  should  try  to  fertilize  the  land  out  here  nearer  the 
great  industrial  centers.  I  will  quote  from  the  hearing,  as  follows: 

Mr.  BAER.  I  am  very  much  interested  in  seeing  the  market  situation  taken 
care  of.  Now,  it'  they  are  located  in  eastern  Montana  or  western  North 
Dakota — and  I  am  not  casting  reflection  upon  any  State — the  situation  would 
lie  bad.  Those  farmers  have  become  discouraged  because  they  are  so  far 
away  from  market.  They  can  not  make  good  on  them.  If  you  take  these  men 
away  out  there,  where  you  must  develop  railroads,  the  difficulties  there  would 
be  great. 

I  think  it  would  be  practicable  to  try  to  fertilize  these  lands  right  near  the 
great  industrial  centers. 


376  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  farmers  on  the  reclaimed  arid  lands  in  the 
West  are  more  prosperous  than  those  who  live  in  any  other  section  of  the 
country? 

Mr.  RAKEK.  If  this  bill  is  to  stop  the  development  of  the  West,  it  would  seem 

Secretary  LANE  (interposing).  Mr.  Baer's  point  is  a  perfectly  good  one. 
There  has  got  to  be  some  artificial  incentive  to  bring  about  the  reestablishnient 
of  people  all  around  upon  their  own  land  where  they  have  markets  near  at  hand. 
You  will  lind  that  sentiment  very  strong  in  States  like  Maine,  Massachusetts, 
New  York,  New  Jersey,  Maryland,  and  all  down  the  coast. 

Mr.  Lane  has  gone  on  record  as  favoring  building  up  the  farms  in 
the  Eastern  States  and  in  New  England  as  well  as  he  has  in  the  West. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  But  he  limits  his  project  to  5,000  acres  or  more,  and 
there  isn't  a  body  of  5,000  acres  in  my  State  a  man  can  make  a  liv- 
ing on. 

Mr.  BAER.  Is  that  in  this  bill,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  isn't  in  the  bill. 

Mr.  BAER.  I  just  thought  if  that  was  in  the  bill  I  would  be  opposed 
to  it  myself.  That  may  be  some  of  Mr.  Lane's  theories. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  All  his  theories  will  have  to  run  the  gauntlet  of 
the  Federal  farm-loan  banks,  the  governors  of  the  States,  the  Appro- 
priations Committees  of  the  House  and  the  Senate. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  You  have  the  bill  in  the  record  and  it  contemplates 
the  community  colonization  scheme. 

Mr.  BAER.  There  is  nothing  said  about  the  5,000  acres. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Atkeson,  how  old  are  you? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  If  I  were  a  woman  I  wouldn't  tell,  but  at  my  last 
birthday  I  was  67  years  of  age. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  old  enough  to  remember  the  controversy 
over  the  passage  of  the  homestead  law  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir.  I  lived  through  the  Civil  War  and  all  the 
things  that  followed. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  controversy  was  raging  from  1850  to  1862,  at 
the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  homestead  law.  Do  you  know  that 
every  objection  that  has  been  urged  against  this  bill  was  urged  against 
the  passage  of  the  homestead  law?  It  was  called  communism  and 
socialism. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  never  heard  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  was  contended  that  they  were  taking  money  out 
of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  because  the  public  land  prior 
to  that  time  was  sold  to  raise  revenues  for  the  General  Government. 
President  Buchanan  in  his  message  to  Congress  said  there  was  no  dis- 
tinction between  taking  money  out  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United 
States  and  giving  some  one  160  acres  of  land.  Every  objection  that 
we  have  heard  urged  before  this  committee  was  urged  then.  Let  me 
read  to  you  what  McMaster  wrote  in  his  history  on  the  introduction 
of  the  bill  and  see  if  these  objections  that  we  are  hearing  to-day  are 
not  repetitions  of  a  great  many  of  them  and  if  they  don't  recall  the 
old  saying,  "  Hark,  from  the  tomb,  a  doleful  sound." 

HISTORY   OF   THE   PEOPT,E    OF   THE    UNITED    STATES Jl'MASTEl!. 

(Vol.   VIII,  P.   108.) 

In  the  House  Andrew  Johnson,  of  Tennessee,  became  the  champion  of  flu- 
landless,  introduced  a  homestead  bill,  and  strove  manfully  in  its  behalf,  till,  in 
the  spring  of  1852,  when  Congressmen  were  soon  to  be  nominated,  70  Members 


HOMES  FOB  SOLDIERS.  377 

of  the  House,  fearing  the  consequences  of  opposition,  absented  themselves,  and 
the  bill  passed.  Then  went  up  from  some  of  the  old  States  a  cry  of  opposition. 
It  would  draw  population  from  them,  leave  them  to  pay  the  debt  incurred  in 
acquiring  the  public  domain,  depreciate  the  value  of  their  lands,  for  who  would 
buy  a  farm  in  North  Carolina  when  he  could  get  one  for  nothing  in  Alabama 
or  Missouri,  and  would  tempt  the  scum  of  society  of  the  Old  World  to 
come  and  squat  on  our  public-  domain  and  scatter  seeds  of  political  pestilence 
on  the  frontier — and  in  a  little  while  the  agrarian  laws  of  Rome  would  be  re- 
enacted  in  America.  This  wholesale  robbery  of  the  old  States  for  the  benefit 
of  the  new  should  be  denounced  by  every  honest  man  the  land  over.  Will  not 
the  good  sense  of  the  Senate  strangle  this  political  monstrosity?  Besides  the 
injury  done  to  the  old  States  by  depriving  them  of  their  property  in  the  public 
lands  and  draining  off  their  population,  the  agrarian  character  of  the  bill  is 
most  objectionable.  It  is  the  most  flagrant  act  of  depredation  on  the  public 
domain  yet  attempted  by  demagogues.  Property  and  usefulness  are  the  fruits 
of  industry  and  self-dependence,  not  of  Government  bounties  and  land  plunder- 
ing. There  is  no  way  of  demoralizing  any  class  more  certainly  than  by  means 
of  gratuities.  Undoubtedly  many  citizens  would  rather  have  a  "farm  given  them 
than  buy  it.  But  they  are  greatly  mistaken  if  they  think  they  are  the  people 
of  the  United  States.  The  people  approve  not  of  such  agrarian  and  Utopian 
schemes.  Congress  has  no  power  to  dispose  of  the  public  land  save  for  na- 
tional purposes.  If  it  may  donate  land  to  the  landless,  it  may  give  money  to 
the  poverty  stricken  and  take  the  value  of  160  acres  out  of  the  Treasury  and 
bestow  it  on  each  individual  of  the  favored  class.  Instead  of  giving  land  to 
the  homeless,  the  bill  will  unsettle  the  homes  of  many  honest  persons  who  have 
bought  their  farms  with  hard  earnings  by  bringing  them  into  competition  with 
other  farms  received  as  an  alms  by  men  too  indolent  and  improvident  to  acquire 
them  as  others  have. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  now  let  me  show  you,  in  part,  what  Presi- 
dent Buchanan  said  in  his  message  vetoing  the  homestead  law,  and 
see  if  he  didn't  voice  many  of  the  utterances  that  we  have  heard 
against  the  Mondell  bill. 

EXTRACTS  FROM  THE  VETO  MESSAGE  OF  PRESIDENT  BUCHANAN,  JUNE  22,   1860. 

I  return,  with  my  objections,  to  the  Senate,  in  which  it  originated,  the  bill 
entitled  "An  act  to  secure  homesteads  to  actual  settlers  on  the  public  domain, 
and  for  other  purposes,"  presented  to  me  on  the  20th  instant. 

*  *  *  *  *  *  * 

IV.  This  bill  will  prove  unequal  and  unjust  in  its  operation,  because,  from 
its  nature,  it  is  confined  to  one  class  of  our  people.  It  is  a  boon  expressly  con- 
ferred upon  the  cultivators  of  the  soil.  While  it  is  cheerfully  admitted  that 
these  are  the  most  numerous  and  useful  class  of  our  fellow  citizens  and  emi- 
nently deserve  all  the  advantages  which  our  laws  have  already  extended  to 
them,  yet  there  should  be  no  new  legislation  which  would  operate  to  the  injury 
or  embarrassment  of  the  large  body  of  respectable  artisans  and  laborers.  The 
mechanic  who  emigrates  to  the  West  and  pursues  his  calling  must  labor  long 
before  he  can  purchase  a  quarter  section  of  land,  while  the  tiller  of  the  soil 
who  accompanies  him  obtains  a  farm  at  once  by  the  bounty  of  the  Government. 
The  numerous  body  of  mechanics  in  our  large  cities  can  not,  even  by  emigrating 
to  the  West,  take  advantage  of  the  provisions  of  this  bill  without  entering  upon 
a  new  occupation  for  which  their  habits  of  life  have  rendered  them  unfit. 
******* 

That  land  of  promise  presents  in  itself  sufficient  allurements  to  our  young  and 
enterprising  citizens,  without  any  adventitious  aid.  The  offer  of  free  farms 
would  probably  have  a  powerful  effect  in  encouraging  emigration,  especially 
from  States  like  Illinois,  Tennessee,  and  Kentucky,  to  the  west  of  the  Missis- 
sippi, and  could  not  fail  to  reduce  the  price  of  property  within  their  limits. 
An  individual  in  States  tlnis  situated  would  not  pay  its  fair  value  for  land  when, 
by  crossing  the  Mississippi,  he  could  go  upon  the  public  lands  and  obtain  a  farm 
almost  without  money  and  without  price. 

*  *  *  *  *  *  * 

The  people  of  the  United  States  have  advanced  with  steady  but  rapid  strides 
to  their  present  condition  of  power  and  prosperity.  They  have  been  guided  in 
their  progress  by  the  fixed  principle  of  protecting  the  equal  rights  of  all,  whether 


378  HOMES  FOE   SOLDIERS. 

they  be  rich  or  poor.  No  agrarian  sentiment  has  ever  prevailed  among  them. 
The  honest  poor  man,  by  frugality  and  industry,  can,  in  any  part  of  our  country, 
acquire  a  competence  for  himself  and  his  family,  and  in  doing  this  he  feels  that 
he  eats  the  bread  of  independence.  He  desires  no  charity,  either  from  the  (Jov- 
ernment  or  from  his  neighbors.  This  bill,  which  proposes  to  give  him  land  at 
an  almost  nominal  price,  out  <-L  the  property  of  the  Government,  will  go  far  to 
demoralize  the  people  and  repress  this  noble  spirit  of  independence.  It  may 
introduce  among  us  those  pernicious  social  theories  which  have  proved  so  disas- 
trous in  other  countries. 

I  am  not  going  to  read  all  of  that;  but  nearly  every  objection  that 
we  have  heard  urged  against  this  bill  is  in  Buchanan's  message  veto- 
ing the  homestead  bill  in  1860,  and  the  contention  was  made  then 
that  you  should  give  anybody  that  did  not  or  could  not  take  up  one  of 
these" homesteads  the  equivalent  in  money  out  of  the  Treasury,  equiva- 
lent to  the  value  of  the  land. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  And  all  the  arguments  given  50  years  afterwards 
have  been  demonstrated  to  be  true. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  think  it  has  all  been  demonstrated  to  be  true  :' 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir.    It  broke  up  many  people  in  the  East . 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  was  the  ultimate  benefit  to  the  Nation? 
Wasn't  it  good  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Probably  so. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Should  we  seek  the  ultimate  benefit  and  good  of 
the  Nation,  or  the  temporary  benefit  and  convenience  and  accommo- 
dation of  some  particular  locality? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  No,  sir.  That  isn't  the  proposition.  We  take  the 
broad  proposition  that  if  a  soldier — for  instance,  I  have  two 
nephews.  My  sister's  son  is  a  farmer.  The  other  is  the  son  of  a 
lawyer  (and  he  ran  for  Congress  out  there  in  his  State).  I  don't 
see  why  both  of  those  boys  shouldn't  be  given  something  if  you  are 
going  to  do  something  for  the  soldier. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  realize  that  this  committee  is  a  committee 
of  limited  jurisdiction?  We  can't  make  the  entire  wearing  apparel 
of  a  person.  W&  can't  make  the  shoes  and  tie  and  collars,  but  our 
proposition  is  simply  how  to  dispose  of  the  land.  There  are  other 
committees  that  have  jurisdiction  of  those  other  matters. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  have  so  much  stuff  here  I  would  like  to  put  into 
the  record,  but  I  am  not  going  to  ask  you  to  print  it,  for  it  wouldn't 
be  wrorth  while.  When  I  came  before  the  committee  the  other  day 
I  assumed  that  there  wouldn't  be  anything  said  against  the  bill  ex- 
cept what  I  said  myself,  and  w^as  rather  disposed  to  treat  it  cap- 
tiously. Since  that  time  I  have  discovered  that  there  was  some  other 
monkey  wrenches  in  this  machinery  and  I  was  lead  to  treat  it  more 
seriously,  and  we  were  trying  to  get  the  best  which  we  could  furnish 
the  chairman  of  the  committee  (we  won't  ask  you  to  print  it  in  the 
record)  as  to  the  productiveness  of  some  of  these  schemes. 

We  want  to  do  any  reasonable  thing  for  the  soldier,  and  as  was 
suggested  by  Judge  Boice  the  other  clay  that  you  give  it  to  him  in 
pay.  I  lived  through  the  period  following  the  Civil  War  down  to 
this,  and  I  had  personal  friends  in  both  armies  and  also  relatives. 
I  had  an  uncle  that  was  an  officer  in  the  Union  Army  and  a  cousin 
that  was  in  the  Confederate  Army.  The  Confederates  didn't  get  any 
pension  and  none  of  them  went  to  the  poorhouse  that  I  know  of. 
Ihey  were  inspired.  They  knew  they  had  to  make  a  living.  They 
went  to  work.  Their  cause  was  lost  and  they  went  on.  I  could  name 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  379 

dozens  and  dozens  of  cases.  One  case  in  my  neighborhood  illustrates 
the  whole  bunch  almost  without  exception.  I  had  a  man  at  work  on 
my  farm,  AY  ho  is  still  living,  now  close  to  80  years  of  age,  who  was 
able  bodied.  He  could  do  twice  as  much  work  as  I  could.  He  ap- 
plied for  a  pension.  I  laughed  at  him.  His  first  name  was  George. 
I  said,  "  George,  if  you  get  that  pension  you  won't  work  any  more." 
"  Oh.  yes,"  he  said,  he  would.  He  said  he  would  buy  him  a  little  farm 
and  do  something.  A  local  attorney  was  looking  after  the  claim,  and 
one  day  he  came  to  the  place  at  my  home  and  wanted  to  know  where 
this  gentleman  was. 

I  told  him  he  was  out  in  the  field  husking  corn,  and  he  went  out 
into  the  field  where  he  was.  He  told  him  his  pension,  with  quite  a 
little  bunch  of  back  money,  came  in.  And  he  didn't  finish  husking 
that  shock  of  corn.  He  just  threw  down  the  last  nubbin  he  had 
husked.  That  was  nearly  35  years  ago,  I  should  say,  and  he  is  still 
living,  and  he  was  able-bodied  then. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Was  he  a  private  or  a  brigadier  general  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  He  was  a  private.  To  my  certain  knowledge  he 
hasn't  done  a  full  day's  work  from  that  time  to  this,  and  I  have  lived 
in  sight  of  him  all  of  this  time.  They  become  sort  of  mendicants. 
They  are  dependent  on  the  pay,  and  it  took  the  manhood  and  nerve 
of  some  mighty  good  men  in  this  country — some  things  that  were 
done  for  the  boys  following  the  war. 

I  would  like  to  give  these  boys  a  chance.  For  God's  sake  let's  make 
it  possible  for  them  to  stand  on  their  hind  legs  as  respectable  citizens. 
If  they  want  to  farm,  let's  help  them.  Let  the  boys  get  the  identical 
farm  that  they  want.  Eliminate  this  whole  colonization  scheme.  If 
another  boy  wants  to  engage  in  some  other  business,  I  would  extend 
to  him  some  personal-credit  plan,  predicated  on  the  land-bank 
scheme,  with  the  ability  to  set  himself  up  in  business  wherever  he 
wanted  to  go.  This  lieutenant  that  has  just  returned,  the  son  of  my 
brother  in  the  West,  was  halfway  through  one  of  the  universities  in 
the  West  taking  a  course  on  journalism. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  was  the  argument  made  by  Buchanan  and 
others  against  the  old  homestead  law — give  him  the  value  in  money 
of  160  acres  of  land  and  let  him  set  himself  up  in  business. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  We  are  talking  about  the  things  in  front  of  us  now. 
That  young  man  will  possibly  get  through  the  university  and  his 
course  in  journalism.  I  can't  see,  for  the  life  of  me,  if  it  is  a  propo- 
sition to  do  something  for  the  soldier,  why  that  boy  shouldn't  be  set 
up  in  a  newspaper  business.  I  don't  mean  to  give  him  a  plant,  but 
give  him  some  kind  of  personal  credit  to  enable  him  to  measure  up  to 
the  position  in  life  that  he  is  trying  to  attain  to.  I  can't,  for  the  life 
of  me.  see  why  it  should  be  a  farm.  It  is  a  fact  that  there  has  been 
a  good  deal  said  about  going  back  to  the  farm.  Behind  this  whole 
propaganda — and  I  will  not  make  reference  to  what  Judge  Boice 
said,  because  I  own  a  farm  and  my  son  is  farming  it  down  in  southern 
Alabama.  My  people  are  southern,  intensively  and  all  the  way 
around,  so  I  have  no  local  prejudices  in  the  matter  whatever.  But  I 
can't,  for  the  life  of  me,  see  why  a  man  who  wants  to  farm  should 
have  the  advantage:  but  behind  the  whole  propaganda  are  three 
propositions.  I  say  this  advisably,  rather  regret  fully.  One  thing  is 
to  provide  immediate  employment  out  of  the  Federal  Treasury  to 


380  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

take  up  a  slack  in  the  labor  supply  of  the  country.  Another  is  to 
provide,  if  possible,  a  cheaper 'food  supply  for  the  country.  Another 
is  involved  in  the  proposition  Judge  Boice  brought  out  yesterday. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  you  deprecate 
this  "  back  to  the  farm  "  propaganda  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  No;  I  didn't  say  that  I  deprecate  that.  I  have  no 
objection  to  that,  if  a  man  wants  to  go  back  to  the  farm.  The  effort 
to  induce  other  people  to  go  to  the  farm  by  any  means  possible  isn't 
based  on  a  sound  economic  policy.  Nobody  is  going  to  a  farm  with- 
out he  thinks  he  can  do  better  there  than  anywhere  else.  That  is  the 
last  analysis  of  this  whole  thing.  If  it  is  a  question  of  help,  the 
soldier  is  to  be  extended  some  sort  of  benefit  equally  with  all  the 
other  soldiers,  whatever  he  wants  to  engage  in.  If  that  interferes 
with  my  business,  he  is  welcome  to  it.  If  it  would  interfere  with 
somebody  else's  business,  he  is  welcome  just  the  same  way. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  had  a  fair  and  full  hearing — you  feel 
that  you  have  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir;  as  much  as  any  of  the  rest  of  them  have. 
And  I  am  going  to  stay  on  this  job. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  appreciate  your  statements,  and  I  am  sure  the 
other  members  of  the  committee  will. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  We  are  here  to  talk  this  thing  over  in  a  friendly 
way,  and  I  know  and  you  know  that  the  real  farmers  in  this  country 
have  not  been  free  to  talk  and  present  their  views  on  this  matter. 

Mr.  HERNANDEZ.  I  want  to  ask  you  if  you  have  made  any  calcula- 
tions as  to  how  much  money  it  would  take  to  set  up  the  4,000.000 
men  in  business  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  It  wouldn't  take  any  of  the  Government's  money. 
The  Government  guarantees  the  bonds,  and  it  isn't  in  money  at  all. 

Mr.  HERNANDEZ.  How  many  failures  do  you  think  there  will  be? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  don't  think  there  will  be  any  if  these  lands  are 
judiciously  selected  and  the  men  who  buy  them  have  any  skill  in 
cultivating  them;  and  every  six  months  they  would  have  to  make  a 
little  payment  on  the  land,  and  the  better  security  they  would  be. 

Mr.  HERNANDEZ.  I  know ;  but  we  are  talking  about  setting  them  up 
in  other  lines  of  business  now  besides  the  land.  Setting  them  up  in 
other  lines. 

Mr.  ATKESON.  That  is  a  matter  of  personal  credit.  Depends  on 
the  character  of  the  business. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  would  approve  a  bond  sale  through  the 
Federal  farm-loan  bank  for  that  purpose  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Of  course,  you  wouldn't  have  the  land  bank  if  a 
man  was  in  business  that  didn't  require  land.  But  I  refer  to  a  ques- 
tion of  personal  credit,  that  has  been  agitated  over  and  over. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  modus  operandi  is  to  sell  bonds? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir ;  so  far  as  the  land  is  concerned.  The  bond 
is  predicated  on  the  land  and  guaranteed  by  the  Government,  which 
makes  them  as  good  as  the  Government. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  would  want  the  Government  to  guarantee 
those  bonds? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir;  and  reserve  title  to  the  land  till  paid  for. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  large  a  bond  issue  would  that  contemplate? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  That  depends  on  how  many  soldiers  want  farms. 


HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS.  381 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  your  idea  of  them  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  don't  believe  10  per  cent  of  the  soldiers  want 
farms. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  would  be  400,000  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  That  would  be  giving  them  the  benefit  of  the  doubt. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  would  it  cost  per  soldier?  Have  you  any 
idea? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  would  put  the  limit  at  $10,000. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  $10,000  per  soldier?  That  would  amount  to 
$4,000,000,000? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  That  is  right. 

The  CHAIRMAN"  Bond  issue  of  $4,000,000.000  guaranteed  by  the 
Government  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  what  you  would  approve?  Don't  you 
know  that  the  Federal  farm-loan  banks  do  not  guarantee  the  bonds  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  it  your  idea  that  they  do  or  do  not  at  the  pres- 
ent time  ? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  They  are  guaranteed  by  the  banks. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Government  does  not  guarantee  them? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  They  are  not  guaranteed  by  the  Government  but 
by  the  banks. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  you  would  be  willing  to  have  your  bonds  for 
farms  for  the  soldiers  guaranteed  by  the  General  Government? 

Mr.  ATKESON.  I  think  you  would  have  to  guarantee  it  by  the  Gov- 
ernment if  you  issued  bonds  to  cover  the  entire  purchase  'price,  and 
that  is  for  soldiers  only.  The  Government  guaranteeing  the  bonds  at 
a  rate  of  interest  of  about  what  it  would  cost  to  handle  it. 

(Thereupon,  at  1.45  p.  m.,  the  committee  adjourned  to  meet  again 
Tuesday,  June  10,  at  10  a.  m.) 


COMMITTEE  ON  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS, 

HOUSE  or  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Tuesday,  June  10,  1919. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Nicholas  J.  Sinnott 
(chairman)  presiding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen,  Mr.  Gandy  desires  to  be  heard  this 
morning. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  HARRY  L.  GANDY,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN 
CONGRESS  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  SOUTH  DAKOTA. 

Mr.  GANDY.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  particularly  wanted  to  call  to  the 
attention  of  the  committee  the  legislation  along  this  line  which 
has  already  been  enacted  by  the  State  of  South  Dakota.  At  the 
last  session  of  the  legislature  there  was  passed  an  act  creating  the 
South  Dakota  land  settlement  board. 

Mr.  SNELL.  This  past  winter,  Mr.  Gandy  ? 

Mr.  GANDY.  Yes.  There  was  appropriated  an  initial  amount  of 
$1,000.000.  There  was  provided  a  certain  tax  levy,  which  will  also 


382  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

raise  some  funds  for  the  board.  I  shall  ask  consent.  Mr.  Chairman, 
to  incorporate  the  law  as  a  part  of  my  remarks  before  the  committee. 

A  careful  reading  of  the  law  discloses  that  the  legislature  had  in 
mind  both  the  individual  selection  of  a  farm  by  the  soldier  and  also 
the  community  idea  in  that  the  legislature  authorized  the  land  board 
to  provide  for  town  sites  and  churches  and  schools,  if  in  their  opinion 
the  situation  made  that  desirable. 

It  is  provided,  first,  that  the  benefits  of  the  act  shall  apply  not 
only  to  soldiers  of  this  war  but  other  wars  of  the  United  Stud-: 
second,  that  the  soldier  shall  make  an  initial  payment  of  10  per  cent 
on  the  land.  The  board  is  authorized  to  make  him  a  loan  of  $1,500 
for  improvements  and  then  it  is  authorized  to  make  an  additional 
loan  of  $1,500  for  stock  or  equipment. 

I  take  it  from  a  reading  of  the  act  that  if  the  loan  of  $1,500  for 
improvements  is  not  made,  the  board  can  make  a  loan  of  $3,000  for 
equipment  and  stcok. 

There  are  several  classes  of  lands  in  South  Dakota  that  this  board 
will  be  able  at  once  to  begin  action  on  and  with.  First,  the  State 
has  large  tracts  of  both  common  school  and  endowment  lands.  Then, 
in  the  eastern  part  of  the  State  there  are  many  quarters  held  by  non- 
residents that  perhaps  the  State  will  be  able  to  purchase;  in  the  we-t- 
ern  portion  of  the  State  there  are  many  thousands  of  quarters  of 
Indian  lands  that  may  or  may  not  be  available,  as  the  board  there 
is  able  to  work  with  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs. 

The  law  provides  that  the  board  shall  have  full  power  to  enter 
into  contracts,  agreements,  and  memorandums  with  the  United  States 
Government  or  any  of  its  agencies  and  cooperate  in  any  way  to 
provide  farm  homes  for  returning  soldiers. 

I  think,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is  all  I  care  to  say  on  the  act  which 
I  want  to  print  as  a  part  of  my  remarks.  If  anyone  has  any  ques- 
tions with  relation  to  it  that  he  desires  to  ask,  I  will  be  glad  to  answer 
them. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Have  they  started  operating  under  that  act  ? 

Mr.  GANDY.  I  am  unable  to  say  as  to  that.  The  governor  has  made 
the  appointments.  It  is  provided  that  the  board  shall  consist  of  the 
governor,  the  Rural  Credits  Commissioner,  the  Commissioner  of  Im- 
migration, and  two  other  members.  The  governor  has  made  the  ap- 
pointments. I  may  say  in  connection  with  that  also  that  the  State 
has  a  State  rural-credits  system  which  has  loaned  to  date  some  six- 
teen to  eighteen  million  dollars  to  the  farmers  of  South  Dakota.  It 
is  getting  along  very  well  and  has  been  of  very  great  help  to  the 
State. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Mr.  Gandy,  have  you  sounded  the  sentiment  in  your 
State  as  to  how  they  feel  about  this  matter  and  what  the  situation 
is  there? 

Mr.  GANDY.  I  have  just  been  explaining  that  the  State  has 
already  enacted  legislation  very  much  along  the  same  lines. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  So  that  your  thought  is  that  they  are  pretty  well  in 
agreement  on  it;  is  that  it? 

Mr.  GANDY.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Have  you  studied  these  plans  that  have  been  offered 
by  various  Members  of  Congress,  some  of  which  have  been  advo- 
cated before  this  committee,  of  giving  the  soldier  an  outright,  fixed 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIEBS.  383 

sum  as  distinguished  from  an  opportunity  to  earn  a  homestead? 
Have  you  thought  of  those  plans? 

Mr.  GANDY.  Yes;  I  have. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  do  you  think  of  those  plans  ? 

Mr.  GANDY.  I  have  been  inclined  to  believe  that  the  greatest  good 
will  come  from  an  opportunity  to  acquire  and  build  up  a  home, 
rather  than  a  straight-out  loan  or  gratuity  of  a  certain  amount  of 
money. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  do  you  conceive  to  be  the  objection  to  a  straight- 
out  loan  of  100  per  cent  with  which  to  buy  farms  wherever  they  may 
elect  to  buy  ?  What  are  the  serious  objections  to  that  ? 

Mr.  SNELL.  I  did  not  understand  you.  Did  you  say  straight-out 
loan  or  gift? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Straight-out  loan.  I  do  not  think  anybody  has  pro- 
posed a  straight-out  gift. 

Mr.  SNELL.  That  has  been  proposed. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Mr.  Garner  proposed  it. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Well,  perhaps  so ;  but  I  am  asking  about  loans.  What 
are  the  salient  objections  to  a  straight-out  loan  to  the  soldier  so  that 
he  can  buy  a  farm  wherever  he  elects  to  buy  one,  in  your  opinion? 
I  ask  these  questions,  I  will  state  to  the  committee  very  frankly, 
because  there  is  a  lot  of  talk  about  the  cloakrooms  and  hotels  by 
Members  who  think  that  is  one  way  to  reach  this  proposition,  and 
what  I  want  to  develop  is  the  opinion  you  have  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  GANDY.  A  loan  of  100  per  cent,  permitting  the  individual  to 
make  an  individual  selection,  would  certainly  have  to  be  very  care- 
fully safeguarded  or  not  much  good  would  come  from  at  least  a 
portion  of  the  loan.  If  the  individual  has  a  portion  of  the  money  to 
pay  himself,  so  that  he  becomes  financially  interested  in  it,  then  I 
see  no  objection  to  permitting  him  to  make  an  individual  selection. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Of  course,  the  bills  we  have  before  us  contemplate 
having  the  soldier  pay  only  5  per  cent,  and  then  these  other  bills,  a 
good  many  of  them,  are  to  the  effect  that  they  should  be  advanced 
the  entire  'amount. 

Mr.  GANDY.  I  have  just  stated  that  the  South  Dakota  law  pro- 
vides that  the  individual  shall  pay  10  per  cent  of  the  price  of  the 
land  and  20  per  cent  of  the  price'  of  the  improvements. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Xow,  what  is  the  answer  to  the  proposition  being 
bruited  around  here  that  if  you  require  them  to  pay  5  or  10  per  cent, 
or  any  per  cent,  the  penniless  soldier  without  anything  at  all  can  not 
avail*  himself  of  it.  while  the  man  who  has  some  means  can  take 
advantage  of  it.  What  is  the  answer  to  that  proposition? 

Mr.  GANDY.  Well,  I  think  under  the  Lane  bill,  even  the  man  with- 
out anything  will  be  enablgd  to  work  out  his  own  salvation.  If  he 
is  interested  to  the  extent  of  working  it  out  in  that  way,  he  is  in  no 
different  position  than  a  man  has  always  been  in  with  reference  to 
a  homestead.  It  has  been  a  very  serious  proposition  as  to  whether 
a  man  without  any  means  can  get  one  of  these  free  homesteads  that 
we  have  talked  about  for  a  good  many  years. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  The  problem  there  is  the  difference  between  a  man 
who  is  fortunate  enough  to  have  some  means  and  a  man  who  has  no 
means  whatever:  and  that  is  a  problem  that  has  always  been  with  us. 

Mr.  GANDY.  Yes. 

133319—19 25 


384  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

AN  ACT  Entitled  "An  act  establishing  and  maintaining  by  the  State  of  South  Dakota 
a  land-settlement  board  and  defining  its  powers  and  duties  ;  providing  for  the  purchase 
and  sale  of  real  and  personal  property  and  the  loaning  of  money  by  the  State  of  South 
Dakota  to  settlers  ;  authorizing  the  State  of  South  Dakota  to  borrow  money  on  its 
warrants  and  bonds  secured  by  the  good  faith  and  credit  of  the  State  for  the  purposes 
authorized  by  this  act ;  providing  for  the  management  of  said  board,  and  providing  for 
an  oppropriation  of  $100,000  to  be  used  by  the  land-settlement  board  for  the  purposes 
authorized  by  this  act  and  for  the  payment  of  salaries,  expenses,  nnd  equipment,  and 
declaring  an  emergency." 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  South  Dakota: 

SECTION  1.  The  object  of  this  act  is  in  recognition  of  military  service,  to  pro- 
vide useful  employment  and  rural  homes  for  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines,  and 
others  who  have  served  with  the  armed  forces  of  the  United  States  in  the  Euro- 
pean war  or  other  wars  of  the  United  States,  including  former  American  citizens 
who  served  in  allied  armies  against  the  central  powers  and  have  been  repatri- 
ated, and  who  have  been  honorably  discharged ;  and  to  accomplish  such  purpose 
by  cooperation  with  the  agencies  of  the  United  States  engaged  in  work  of  a 
similar  character.  This  act  may  be  cited  as  "  The  South  Dakota  land-settlement 
act,"  and  its  benefits  may  be  extended  to  other  persons  when  there  are  no 
qualified  soldier  applicants. 

SEC.  2.  There  is  hereby  created  a  South  Dakota  Land  Settlement  Board,  to 
consist  of  the  governor,  the  rural  credit  commissioner,  the  commissioner  of 
immigration,  and  two  other  members,  who  will  be  appointed  by  the  governor, 
and,  unless  sooner  removed  by  the  governor,  shall  serve  for  a  term  of  three  and 
two  years,  respectively,  and  to  be  so  selected  that  the  board  will  not  be  composed 
wholly  of  persons  who  are  members  of  or  affiliated  with  the  same  political  party 
or  organization.  One  of  the  appointed  members  shall  be  designated  as  land- 
settlement  commissioner,  and  shall  be  ex-officio  secretary  and  general  executive 
officer  of  the  board,  and  shall  be  appointed  for  a  term  of  three  years ;  shall 
devote  all  of  his  time  and  attention  to  the  duties  of  his  office:  and  shall  receive 
a  salary  of  $3,000  per  annum,  payable  monthly.  He  shall  at  the  time  of  his 
appointment  subscribe  and  file  the  usual  oath  and  furnish  :i  bond  in  :i  sum  not 
less  than  $5,000,  but  at  all  times  sufficient  to  protect  the  State  against  loss,  to 
be  approved  and  filed  as  are  the  bonds  of  other  State  officers.  He  shall  be  cus- 
todian of  the  seal  of  said  board,  which  seal  shall  contain  the  name  of  the  board, 
and  shall  keep  a  record  of  all  its  proceedings  and  all  such  other  books,  records, 
and  accounts  as  are  necessary  or  requisite  to  keep  an  accurate  record  of  all  the 
business  transacted  by  the  board,  and  shall  do  and  perform  such  other  duties 
as  may  be  required  of  him  by  said  board.  The  remaining  member  shall  be 
appointed  for  a  two-year  term  and  receive  a  per  diem  of  $6  per  day  while  en- 
gaged in  discharging  his  duties  as  such  member.  He  shall  take  and  subscribe 
to  the  usual  official  oath,  and  shall  furnish  an  official  bond  in  a  sum  not  less 
than  $5,000.  The  attorney  general  shall  be  the  legal  adviser  of  the  board  and 
represent  the  board  in  any  suits  or  actions  which  may  arise  out  of  the  dis- 
charge of  its  duties. 

SEC.  3.  Said  board  shall  have  authority  to  acquire,  on  behalf  of  the  State, 
such  lands  in  this  State  as,  in  its  opinion,  are  suitable  for  cultivation  and 
improvement,  together  with  any  water  rights  and  rights  of  way  desirable  or 
necessary  in  connection  therewith;  to  improve  and  sell  such  lands  to  approved 
settlers,  giving  preference  always  to  soldiers,  under  the  condition  prescribed  by 
this  act :  to  set  aside  for  town-site  purposes  any  lands  acquired  under  this  act 
when  in  the  judgment  of  the  board  this  is  desirable;  and  to  subdivide  and  sell 
same  in  lots  of  such  size  and  with  such  restrictions  as  to  resale  as  the  board 
shall  determine  best;  to  set  aside  and  dedicate  to  public  use  such  area  or  areas 
as  it  may  deein  desirable  for  roads,  school  houses,  churches,  or  other  public  pur- 
poses; to  improve  or  to  furnish  money  in  the  manner  herein  provided  for  the 
improvement  or  equipment  of  lands  sold  to  a  settler,  or  upon  which  the  owner 
has  obtained  a  loan  from  the  State  through  the  South  Dakota  Rural  Credit 
Board  or  under  the  Federal  farm  loan  act,  or  public  lands  which  have  been 
sold  by  the  State  upon  deferred  payments;  to  take  security  upon  the  lands, 
improvements,  and  equipment  for  lands  sold,  improvements  made,  or  moneys 
furnished;  to  borrow  upon  the  credit  of  the  State  not  exceeding  the  sum  of 
$1,000,000,  to  he  used  for  the  purpose  authorized  in  this  act,  and  to  issue  war- 
rants or  bonds  of  the  State  therefor;  to  expend  any  moneys  appropriated  for 
the  use  of  the  board,  or  which  it  may  obtain  by  the  sale  of  its  securities  or 
otherwise,  as  herein  provided ;  to  cooperate  with  the  Federal  Government  in 
providing  employment  and  homes  for  soldiers  and  sot  Hers  by  providing  for  and 
encouraging  settlement  upon  lands,  and  for  this  purpose  to  enter  into  conn-arts 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  385 

«>r  agreements  with  the  United  States  of  America ;  and  it  shall  have  the  author- 
ity to  perform  all  acts  necessary  to  cooperate  fully  with  the  agencies  of  the 
United  States  engaged  in  work  of  a  similar  nature;  to  acquire  tracts  of  land 
that  are  susceptible  of  intensive  cultivation  by  reason  of  irrigation  or  otherwise, 
and  to  prepare  such  lands  for  irrigation  and  cultivation,  and  to  subdivide  and 
sell  the  same;  to  exercise  the  power  of  eminent  domain  on  the  part  of  the  State 
for  the  condemnation  of  water  rights,  rights  of  way  for  roads,  canals,  ditches, 
dams,  and  reservoirs  necessary  or  desirable  for  carrying  out  the  provisions  of 
this  act ;  and,  on  request  of  the  board,  the  attorney  general  shall  bring  the  nec- 
essary and  appropriate  proceedings  authorized  by  law  for  such  condemnation ; 
to  appropriate  water  under  the  laws  of  the  State  when  such  appropriation  is 
necessary  or  desirable  for  carrying  out  the  purposes  of  this  act ;  to  procure  such 
employees  as  it  may  deem  necessary  to  conduct  the  business  of  the  board;  to  tix 
the  bonds  and  salaries  or  compensation  of  such  employees ;  to  define  the  duties 
of  the  officers,  agents,  and  employees  of  the  board ;  and  shall  make  to  the  gov- 
ernor annually  a  full  report  of  its  business  for  the  preceding  fiscal  year,  with 
such  general  information  and  recommendations  as  may  to  the  board  seem 
proper. 

SEC.  4.  The  board,  prior  to  disposing  of  lands  to  settlers  or  ;it  any  time  after 
such  lands  have  been  disposed  of,  but  not  after  the  end  of  the  fifth  year  from 
the  date  of  settler's  purchase,  may: 

(a)  Seed,  plant,  or  fence  such  land  and  cause  dwelling  houses  and  outbuild- 
ings to  be  erected  on  any  farm  or  make  any  other  improvements  necessary  to 
render  the  land  habitable  and  productive  in  advance  of,  or  after,  settlement," the 
total  cost  of  such  dwellings,  outbuildings,  and  improvements  not  to  exceed 
$1,50(1  on  any  one  farm. 

<h)  Make  loans  to  approved  settlers  on  personal  security  or  secured  by  mort- 
gage or  mortgages  on  personal  property,  but  the  total  amount  of  any  such  loan 
to  any  individual  settler,  together  with  money  spent  by  the  board  on  improve- 
ments, as  above  specified,  shall  not  exceed  $3,000. 

SEC.  5.  The  total  amount  of  money  loaned  to  any  one  person  under  the  pro- 
visions of  this  act  shall  in  no  case  exceed  the  sum  of  $10,000. 

SEC.  6.  Every  person  whose  application  has  been  approved  shall  enter  into  a 
written  contract  with  the  board,  which  shall,  among  other  things,  provide  that 
the  purchaser  shall  pay  as  a  cash  deposit  a  sum  not  less  than  10  per  cent  of 
the  sale  price  of  the  farm  or  tract,  and  in  addition  a  sum  not  less  than  20  per 
cent  of  the  cost  of  improvements  made  and  equipment  furnished.  The  board 
may  at  any  time  require  the  purchaser  to  make  an  application  for  a  loan  from 
the  South  Dakota  Rural  Credit  Board,  or  from  the  Federal  farm-loan  bank, 
under  the  provisions  of  the  Federal  farm-loan  act,  for  such  amount  as  may  be 
obtained  from  these  agencies.  The  balance  due  on  the  land  may  be  paid  in 
installments  extending  over  a  period  to  be  fixed  by  the  board,  not  exceeding  30 
years,  with  interest  at  a  rate  not  less  than  one-half  nor  exceeding  li  per  cent 
per  annum  above  the  rate  actually  paid  by  the  hoard.  The  amount  due  on 
improvements  shall  be  paid  in  installments  extending  over  a  period  to  be  fixed 
by  the  board,  not  exceeding  10  years,  together  with  interest  thereon  at  a  rate 
determined,  as  above  provided.  The  repayment  of  loans  made  on  other  personal 
property  shall  extend  over  a  period  to  be  fixed  by  the  board,  not  exceeding  5 
years.  The  option  may  be  given  any  settler  to  pay  any  or  all  installments 
remaining  unpaid  at  any  time. 

SEC.  7.  The  deferred  payments  for  lands  sold  and  the  interest  thereon  shall 
be  paid  promptly  when  due.  Whenever  the  purchaser  of  any  tract  shall  fail 
to  pay  the  principal  or  interest  due  by  him  to  the  State  for  such  tract  within 
three  months  after  the  same  shall  become  due,  or  shall  violate  any  of  the 
provisions  of  the  contract  of  sale,  such  contract  shall  be  null  and  void,  and  he 
shall  forfeit  the  amount  of  purchase  money  and  interest  paid  on  the  purchase 
of  said  land,  and  all  right,  title,  and  interest  in  all  improvements  thereon,  and 
such  payments  and  improvements  shall  be  retained  by  the  State  for  the  same 
purposes  for  which  the  proceeds  of  sale  from  such  lands  are  used  in  full  satis- 
faction and  in  liquidation  of  all  damages  for  the  use  and  possession  of  said 
property  by  the  purchaser:  and  the  State  shall  have  immediate  right  to  re- 
enter  and  take  possession  of  said  real  estate:  Provider!.,  That  the  land  settle- 
ment commissioner  shall  serve  upon  the  purchaser  or  his  legal  representatives 
or  assigns  a  notice  specifying  the  conditions  in  which  default  has  been  made, 
stating  that  such  contract  will  terminate  30  days  after  the  service  of  such 
notice,  or  at  the  expiration  of  three  months  after  the  default,  if  that  time  has 
not  already  expired,  unless  prior  thereto  the  purchaser  shall  comply  with 


386  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

such  conditions  and  pay  the  costs  of  service.  Such  notice  shall  be  served  per- 
sonally in  the  manner  provided  for  the  service  of  summons  in  civil  actions.  If 
the  person  to  be  served  is  not  a  resident  of  the  State  or  can  not  be  found  therein, 
of  which  facts  the  return  of  the  sheriff  of  the  county  where  the  real  estate  lies, 
that  he  can  not  be  found  in  such  county  shall  be  prima  facie  evidence,  service 
shall  be  made  by  three  weeks'  published  notice  in  a  newspaper  of  general  cir- 
culation in  the  county  where  the  real  estate  is  situated :  Provided,  That  per- 
sonal service  of  said  notice  without  the  State  proved  by  affidavit  of  the  person 
making  the  same,  made  before  an  authorized  officer  having  a  seal,  shall  have 
the  same  effect  as  the  published  notice  herein  provided  for.  If,  within  the 
time  mentioned  in  the  notice,  the  person  served  complies  with  such  conditions 
and  pays  the  costs  of  service  the  contract  shall  be  thereby  reinstated  to  the 
same  effect  as  thought  no  default  had  occurred,  but  otherwise  shall  terminate  as 
hereinbefore  provided.  A  copy  of  the  notice,  with  proof  of  service  thereof,  and 
the  affidavit  of  the  land  settlement  commissioner  showing  the  purchaser  has 
not  complied  with  the  terms  of  the  notice,  may  be  recorded  with  the  register 
of  deeds  and  shall  be  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  facts  herein  stated.  The 
State  shall  have  a  first  lien  on  all  crops  and  grains  grown  upon  the  land  pur- 
chased or  mortgaged  under  the  provisions  of  this  act  for  the  payment  of  any 
investment  of  interest,  principal,  taxes,  or  assessments  due  or  to  become  due 
during  the  calendar  year  in  which  such  crop  is  raised. 

SEC.  8.  When  the  mortgagor  or  his  successor  in  interest  has  fully  paid  any 
mortgage,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  board  to  furnish  him  with  a  proper  release 
or  satisfaction  of  said  mortgage  executed  by  the  land-settlement  commissioner, 
with  an  impression  of  the  seal  of  the  board  thereon,  and  the  morgage  papers 
belonging  to  such  loan,  including  abstract  title  and  insurance  policies  assigned, 
shall  be  returned  to  such  person. 

SEC.  9.  Whenever  warrants  or  bonds  are  issued  by  the  board  under  this  act. 
it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  land-settlement  commissioner  to  submit  to  the  governor 
a  full  statement  thereof,  and  a  copy  shall  be  filed  in  the  office  of  the  secretary  of 
state  as  a  permanent  record.  Said  warrants  or  bonds  shall  be  registered  in  the 
office  of  the  State  treasurer  and  sold  at  not  less  than  par.  Bonds  and  warrants 
may  be  issued  in  such  denominations,  not  exceeding  $1,000,  as  may  be  determined 
by  the  board.  The  term  of  said  bonds  shall  in  no  case  be  longer  than  10  years 
from'  the  final  passage  of  this  act.  They  shall  have  interest  coupons  attached, 
payable  semiannually,  and  shall  be  issued  in  series  of  not  less  than  $25,000.  the 
amount,  rate  of  interest,  and  terms  to  be  fixed  by  the  board.  They  shall  bear 
on  their  face  the  words  "Land  Settlement  Bonds,"  and  the  great  seal  of  the 
State  of  South  Dakota  shall  be  fixed  to  each  bond.  All  such  bonds  shall  be 
exempt  from  any  taxes,  levies,  or  impositions  made  under  authority  of  the  laws 
of  this  State,  and  the  good  faith  and  credit  af  the  State  of  South  Dakota  is 
hereby  pledged  for  the  payment  of  said  bonds  and  interest  thereon  as  the  same 
becomes  due.  Warrants  may  be  issued  for  short-time  credit,  when  the  boanl 
deems  this  to  be  necessary,  but  the  interest  rate  shall  not  be  greater  than  <> 
per  cent  per  annum,  and  the  board  shall  endeavor  to  secure  the  best  interest  rate 
possible  on  both  bonds  and  warrants.  The  board  shall  prescribe  rules  and 
regulations  concerning  the  manner  in  which  such  bonds  and  warrants  shall  be 
sold,  paid,  and  retired  not  inconsistent,  with  the  provisions  of  this  act.  Said 
bonds  and  warrants  shall  be  signed  by  the  governor  and  the  land-settlement 
commissioner  and  shall  be  attested  by  the  secretary  of  state.  The  total  amount 
ol  such  bonds  and  warrants  shall  in  no  case  exceed  the  sum  of  $1,000,000. 

SEC.  10.  The  tax  commission  of  the  State  of  South  Dakota  is  hereby  authorized 
and  directed  to  levy  an  annual  tax.  not  exceeding  one-hall'  of  1  mill,  on  1  he 
assessed  valuation  of  all  taxable  property  in  the  State,  sufficient  to  pay  the 
interest  semiannually  and  the  principal  of  such  bonded  indebtedness  within  10 
years  from  the  final  passage  of  this  act. 

SEC.  11.  Such  taxes  when  collected  shall  be  paid  into  the  State  treasury  and 
credited  to  a  special  fund  to  be  designated  "  Land-settlement  interest  and  sink- 
ing fund  "  and  applied  to  the  payment  of  interest  on  such  bonds  semiannually, 
and  the  final  redemption  of  such  bonds  and  such  taxes,  when  paid  into  the  State 
treasury,  shall  remain  a  specific  fund  for  such  purposes,  only  except  as  herein- 
after provided. 

SEC.  12.  Said  land-settlement,  interest,  and  sinking  fund  may  be  invested 
annually  in  United  States  bonds  or  deposited  at  interest  in  any  bank  in  the  State 
of  South  Dakota  whose  deposits  are  .guaranteed  under  the  depositor's  guaranty 
fund  of  this  State. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  387 

SEC.  13.  If  at  any  time  it  shall  appear  that  there  will  not  be  sufficient  funds 
in  the  land-settlement  fund  in  the  treasury  of  the  State  to  pay  the  bonds,  war- 
rants, or  interest  thereon,  when  same  shall  become  due,  it  shall  be  the  duty 
of  the  tax  commission  of  this  State,  upon  request  of  the  board,  to  make  a  special 
assessment  and  levy  immediately  to  pay  same,  which  levy  shall  be  collected  in 
the  same  manner  as  other  tax  levies  made  by  said  commission.  As  soon  as  such 
tax  levy  shall  have  been  made,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  State  auditor,  upon 
request  of  the  board,  to  issue  warrant  or  warrants,  as  said  board  may  direct, 
bearing  interest  not  to  exceed  6  per  cent  per  annum,  and  register  same  drawn  on 
the  fund  to  be  derived  from  such  special  levy,  in  an  amount  with  interest  pro- 
vided in  said  warrants  not  exceeding  said  levy,  and  deliver  the  same  to  said 
board,  and  said  warrants  of  the  State  auditor  may  be  sold  by  the  board.  The 
moneys  derived  from  the  sale  of  such  warrants  shall  be  used  for  the  payment  of 
the  bonds,  warrants,  or  interest  on  same  issued  by  the  board,  for  which  there 
were  not  funds  available  from  which  they  might  be  paid.  The  moneys  derived 
from  said  special  levy  shall  be  placed  in  a  special  fund  in  the  State  treasury 
and  shall  be  used  only  for  the  redemption  of  the  warrants  drawn  on  said  fund, 
and  which  shall  have  been  s»ld,  or  for  the  payment  of  bonds,  warrants,  and 
interest  thereon  issued  by  the  board  when  same  shall  become  due.  All  of  the 
moneys  derived  from  said  special  levy  are  hereby  appropriated  for  the  pay- 
ment of  the  warrants  drawn  on  said  fund  and  sold  as  above  provided,  or  for  the 
payment  of  the  said  bonds,  warrants,  or  interest  thereon,  at  maturity. 

SEC.  14.  For  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  this  act  and  for 
the  payment  of  all  expenses  incurred  under  its  provisions,  including  salaries 
per  diem,  and  actual  and  necessary  traveling  expenses  of  the  members  of  the 
board  and  its  employees,  the  sum  of  $100,000  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of 
any  moneys  in  the  State  treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated.  These  moneys, 
together  with  all  other  moneys  of  the  board,  shall  constitute  a  revolving  fund 
to  be  known  as  the  "  Land  Settlement  Fund."  The  moneys  hereby  appro- 
priated shall  be  returned  to  the  general  fund  of  the  State  in  such  amount  and 
at  such  times  as  to  said  board  shall  seem  advisable.  The  board  may  file  a 
voucher  approved  by  the  governor  and  the  land  settlement  commissioner  with 
the  State  auditor  for  advances  of  money  to  the  board  needed  to  meet  con- 
tingent expenses  in  such  an  amount  not  exceeding  $5,000  at  any  time  as  the 
said  board  shall  deem  necessary-  It  shall  then  be  the  duty  of  the  State  auditor 
to  issue  a  direction  to  the  State  treasurer,  who  shall  be  ex  officio  treasurer 
of  said  board,  to  set  aside  in  an  account  the  amount  required,  and  the  board 
may  thereupon  check  directly  against  such  account.  The  checks  issued  by 
the  board  shall  constitute  the  vouchers  of  the  State  treasurer  in  settlement 
with  the  State  auditor  for  said  sum  so  set  aside.  Other  disbursements  of 
the  board  shall  be  made  in  the  usual  way  by  the  presentation  of  vouchers  to 
the  State  auditor,  who  shall  thereupon  issue  his  warrant  upon  the  State 
treasurer  for  the  sums  expended,  or  required  to  be  expended,  by  such  vouchers. 

SEC.  15.  The  board  may  also  lease,  or  assent  to  the  lease  of,  any  lands  pend- 
ing receipt  of  application  for  purchase  thereof.  The  proceeds  of  all  operations 
under  this  act  shall  be  covered  into  the  South  Dakota  land  settlement  fund. 

SEC.  16.  Lands  acquired  pursuant  to  this  act  shall  be  subject  to  State  and 
local  taxation  and  assessment  for  improvement  purposes  from  the  date  of  the 
execution  of  the  contract  for  the  purchase  thereof  by  settlers  upon  any  project 
undertaken  hereunder.  If  the  contracting  purchaser  shall  fail  to  pay  such 
taxes  and  assessments,  the  same  may  be  paid  from  the  fund  hereby  provided 
and  charged  to  the  purchaser  with  interest  at  the  rate  of  10  per  cent  per 
annum  from  date  of  payment,  and  shall  be  a  lien  on  the  property  assessed. 

SKC.  17.  No  money  shall  be  loaned  nor  property  purchased,  under  the  pro- 
visions of  this  act,  after  January  1.  1922. 

SEC.  18.  The  board  is  hereby  authorized  to  perform  such  acts  and  make 
such  rules  and  regulations  as  it  deems  necessary  and  proper  to  carry  this 
act  into  full  force  and  effect. 

SEC.  19.  If  any  part  of  this  act  shall,  for  any  reason,  be  adjudged  by  any 
court  of  competent  jurisdiction  to  be  invalid,  such  judgment  shall  not  affect, 
impair,  or  invalidate  the  remainder  of  this  act.  but  shall  be  confined  in  its 
operation  to  the  particular  part  thereof  directly  involved  in  the  controversy 
wherein  such  judgment  shall  have  been  rendered. 

SEC.  20.  Whereas  the  passage  of  this  act  is  immediately  necessary  for  the 
support  of  the  State  government  and  its  existing  public  institutions,  an  emer- 
gency is  hereby  declared  to  exist,  and  this  act  shall  be  in  full  force  and  effect 
from  and  after  its  passage  and  approval. 


388  HOMES    FOR    SOLDIERS. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  BENJAMIN  C.  MARSH,  SECRETARY  OF  THE 
FARMERS'  NATIONAL  COUNCIL,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 

The  ( 'iiAiit.MAN.  ( ientlemen,  there  is  a  Mr.  Marsh  here,  and  Mr. 
Baer  has  requested  that  he  be  given  some  time. 

Mr.  MARSH.  May  I  have  about  15  minutes  or  so.  Mr.  Chairman  ( 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  has  been  the  limit  to  members.  Will  you  tell 
the  committee  your  name,  your  residence,  and  whom  you  represent. 
Mr.  Marsh  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman.  My  name  is  Benjamin  C.  Marsh, 
and  I  am  secretary  of  the  Farmers'  National  Council,  which  is  a 
special  union  for  carrying  out  the  reconstruction  program  of  a  num- 
ber of  leading  farm  organizations. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Will  you  tell  us  something  about  that  organization, 
how  it  was  formed,  and  of  whom  it  is  composed? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Yes;  it  was  called  into  existence  at  a  conference  on  re- 
construction held  here  in  Washington  last  January — a  delegate  body 
representing  the  National  Federation  of  Gleaners,  the  American  So- 
ciet}r  of  Equit}'.  the  National  Non-Partisan  League,  and  a  number 
of  State  farmers'  unions  and  State  granges.  The  National  Farmers' 
Union  and  the  National  Grange,  as  such,  are  not  affiliated  witb  this 
Farmers'  National  Council,  but  a  number  of  the  State  granges  are. 
because,  as  you  gentlemen  probably  know,  the  State  granges  have 
complete  autonomy  in  their  own  affairs  and  on  national  questions. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  many  attended  your  meeting?  1  wish  you 
would  go  very  fully  into  your* organization.  Mr.  Marsh. 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  do  not  know  just  what  you  mean  by  going  fully  into 
our  organization. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Tell  us  who  compose  it  and  who  attended,  particu- 
larly the  meeting  that  you  have  referred  to. 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  do  not  know  that  T  can  give  you  a  list  of  all  the  mem- 
bers, because  there  were  so  many  here  at  this  reconstruction  confer- 
ence, but  I  may  go  a  little  further  back  and  say  that  shortly  after  the 
armistice  was  signed  the  Farmers'  National  Headquarters  asked  these 
farm  organizations  to  send  representatives  here  to  draft  a  tentative 
reconstruction  program,  and  they  came  down  here  and  spent  nearly 
a  week,  and  representatives  from  several  of  these  organizations 
drafted  this  preliminary  or  tentative  program,  which  was  then  sub- 
mitted to  the  organizations  for  discussion  all  over  the  country,  and 
then  this  January  conference  was  the  outcome  of  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  did  not  get  just  who  sent  out  this  invitation. 

Mr.  MARSH.  The  Farmers'  National  Headquarters. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  that? 

Mr.  MARSH.  That  was  started  as  a  combination  of  several  progres- 
sive granges,  and  it  has  been  operating  here  in  Washington  for  nearly 
10  years  now.  I  have  been  here  with  it  only  since  a  year  ago  last 
April,  and  it  has  been  cooperating — 

The  CHAIRMAN  (interposing).  What  do  you  mean  by  progressive 
granges?  Is  a  progressive  grange  different  from  the  patrons  of 
husbandry  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  The  granges  which  designate  themselves  as  progres- 
sive granges — you  may  know  that  there  was  a  good  deal  of  discussion 
in  the  national  granges  some  years  ago  on  political  questions,  but 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  389 

chiefly  on  economic  questions,  and  there  was  an  organization  known 
as  the  Progressive  State  Granges.  "  I  might  say  this.  Mr.  Chairman, 
that  naturally  I  am  not  in  complete  touch  with  all  the  details  of 
that  matter,  but  if  you  would  ask  Mr.  George  P.  Hampton,  the  man- 
aging director,  I  know  he  would  be  glad  to  come  here  and  explain 
to  you  the  organization.  The  National  Headquarters  is  distinct  from 
the  Farmers'  National  Council,  which  I  understand  is  the  chief  one 
you  have  in  mind,  while,  of  course,  these  farm  organizations,  either 
out  of  a  clear  sky  or  on  their  own  initiative,  or  in  any  way,  have  the 
right  to  come  together  and  adopt  a  reconstruction  program. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Is  that  the  same  program  that  Dr.  Atkeson  presented 
here  yesterday? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  He  said  there  was  some  call  for  a  meeting  and  that 
they  gathered  here  and  drafted  a  program  of  reconstruction,  and  he 
presented  it  to  us  yesterday. 

Mr.  MARSH.  The  National  Grange  at  their  last  annual  meeting, 
held  at  Syracuse,  N.  Y.,  last  November,  adopted  a  reconstruction 
program  which  differs  in  many  respects,  although  we  agree  on  a 
number  of  fundamentals,  from  the  Farmers'  National  reconstruction 
program. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  a  copy  of  your  program? 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  have  a  copy  of  the  full  program  here. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Mr.  Marsh,  before  you  go  into  that,  let  us  get  this 
organization  straight.  Who  are  tlie  officers  in  this  National  Head- 
quarters, and  what  is  their  address? 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  will  give  you  that. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Second.  I  wish  you  would  state  just  who  they  repre- 
sent, and  who  pays  for  this  headquarters,  and  pays  the  salaries  of 
yourself  and  Mr.  Hampton'  at  these  headquarters  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  can  not  give  you.  right  off  the  bat  all  of  the  addresses. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  can  give  us  the  organization,  and  the  names  of 
the  men  who  run  this  national  headquarters  that  you  spoke  of? 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  am  very  glad  to  answer  these  questions,  but  this 
should  not  come  out  of  my  15  minutes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No:  we  will  not  take  it  out  of  your  time. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  I  am  trying  to  get.  first,  is  just  what  this  head- 
quarters is.  and  my  reason  for  asking  you  these  questions  is  that  we 
have  had  so  many  farmers'  organizations  coming  here,  and  so  many 
have  appeared  and  have  such  different  views  that  I  want  to  see  just 
who  they  are  each  time,  and  I  would  like  to  have  the  record  show  the 
names  of  the  men  who  run  these  headquarters  that  Mr.  Marsh  repre- 
sents, and  I  would  like  to  have  the  name  and  address  of  every  organi- 
zation that  they  represent  and  who  maintains  them  here. 

Mr.  MARSH. 'Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  be  very  glad  to  give  that 
from  memory  or  submit  it  in  writing,  but  I  would  suggest  the  pro- 
priety, since  the  questions  have  been  raised,  of  having  Mr.  George  P. 
Hampton  here,  and  I  know  Mr.  Smith  and  several  others  know  him. 
and  I  would  suggest  it  would  be  more  appropriate  to  have  the  man- 
aging director,  who  has  been  associated  with  this  movement  from  its 
inception,  answer  these  questions.  I  can  answer,  in  a  general  way, 
but  the  details  as  to  conrtibutions.  and  so  forth,  would  have  to  come 
from  him.  The  president  is  Hon.  Herbert  F.  Baker.  Republican 
State  Senator  in  Michigan,  and  a  leader  in  the  grange  movement. 


390  HOMES  FOE   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  He  is  not  actively  in  charge  here.  Let  us  have  the 
names  of  the  men  actively  in  charge. 

Mr.  MARSH.  The  men  actively  in  charge  are  the  gentlemen  who 
drafted  this  program. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Who  are  they ! 

Mr.  MARSH.  That  I  will  have  to  give  you.  Mr.  Herbert  F.  Baker 
was  here,  and  Mr.  C.  H.  Gustafson,  president  of  the  Nebraska  Farm- 
ers' Union,  was  here,  and  Mr.  Grant  Slocum,  president  of  the  National 
Federation  of  Gleaners,  and  Mr.  J.  Weller  Long,  secretary-treasurer 
of  the  American  Society  of  Equity,  and  there  was  a  long  list  of  40 
people  here,  and,  naturally,  I  can  not  give  you  at  the  minute  all  their 
names  and  addresses. 

Mr.  TAY'OR.  Did  they  all  sign  this  pronunciamento  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  This  was  unanimously  adopted.  They  also  unani- 
mously adopted  a  program  to  carry  it  out  through  special  commit- 
tees. Mr.  Hampton  is  managing  director  of  the  Farmer's  National 
Headquarters,  and  was  selected  to  continue  as  managing  director  of 
the  Farmers'  National  Council,  and  we  indulge  in  the  exceedingly 
democratic  method  of  a  referendum  on  special  matters,  after  adopt- 
ing this  program. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Who  are  the  executives  or  the  officials  residing  in 
Washington? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Mr.  George  P.  Hampton  and  myself,  Benjamin  C. 
Marsh.  Mr.  Hampton  is  the  managing  director  and  I  am  the  secre- 
tary. We  have  frequent  conferences.  For  instance,  Dr.  Long  and  Mr. 
Tittenmore  and  Mr.  Gustafson  have  been  down  here  several  times, 
one  or  more  of  them,  since  this  program  was  adopted. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  When  was  your  last  national  convention  held  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  You  understand  we  just  organized  this  Farmers'  Na- 
tional Council  in  January  of  this  year.  We  have  announced  to  the 
press  that  we  shall  hold  a  farmers'  national  conference  here  in  Octo- 
ber or  at  the  first  session  of  the  league  of  nations,  assuming  it  meets 
here  in  Washington,  which  seems  to  be  the  general  understanding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  many  representatives  from  the  different 
States  attended  this  organization  meeting? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Approximately  40  to  45,  but  the  National  Nonpartisan 
Leageu,  for  instance,  represents  a  membership  of  about  250.000,  and 
there  are  approximately  750,000,  although  the  number  is  constantly 
increasing,  members  of  the  farmers'  organizations  which  are  united 
for  the  specific  purpose  of  carrying  out  this  reconstruction  program. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  what  are  these  farmers'  organizations  united 
for  the  specific  purpose  of  carrying  out  this  program  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  will  be  glad  to  repeat  them.  The  American  Society 
of  Equity,  the  National  Gleaner  Federation,  the  National  Nonparti- 
san League,  the  Washington.  Oregon,  Idaho,  and  Colorado  State 
granges,  the  Farmers'  Union  of  Nebraska  and  of  North  Carolina, 
which  together  constitute  nearly  one-half  of  the  total  membership  of 
the  National  Farmers'  Union.  They  are  all  cooperating  in  the  pro- 
gram, and  there  are  a  number  of  smaller  organizations. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Mr.  Marsh,  are  you  the  representative  here  in  Wash- 
ington of  all  these  organizations? 

Mr.  MARSH.  No:  we  are  the  representatives  of  these  organizations 
on  this  program.  For  instance,  if  matters  come  up  on  which  we  have 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIEKS.  391 

not  taken  any  definite  action,  we  do  not  assume  to  speak  for  them 
except  as  we  may  have  instructions. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Are  you  now  presuming  to  speak  for  all  of  them  OR 
this  program? 

Mr.  MARSH.  On  this  program;  yes. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Before  this  committee? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  And  what  you  say  is  the  reflection  of  the  views  of  all 
these  organizations? 

Mr.  MARSH.  It  is  what  we  understand  to  be  the  reflection  of  the 
views  of  all  these  organizations. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  What  you  say  is  their  sentiment  rather  than  what 
anybody  else  has  said  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  So  far  as  these  organizations  are  concerned,  I  think  1 
made  it  clear  from  the  beginning  that  I  do  not  attempt  or  assume  to 
speak  for  the  National  Grange.  They  are  entitled  to  their  own  point 
of  view,  but  a  State  grange  can  adopt,  and  does  adopt,  its  own  pro- 
gram and  its  own  platform,  and  it  disagrees,  if  necessary,  and  op- 
poses the  position  of  the  National  Grange  on  any  national  question. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Aside  from  the  Grange,  you  represent  here  all  the 
other  farmers'  organizations? 

Mr.  MARSH.  We  represent  them  on  this  program,  as  we  understand 
their  position. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  That  is,  the  Nonpartisan  League,  the  American  So- 
ciety of  Equity,  the  National  Gleaners'  Federation — and  what  other 
organization  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  And  some  of  these  State  granges  and  the  farmers' 
unions — some  of  them,  not  all  of  them. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Do  you  represent  the  entire  National  Farmers' 
Union? 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  said  in  the  beginning  that  I  do  not  represent  the 
National  Farmers'  Union. 

Mr.  WHFTK  Did  you  not  rather  represent  the  Farmers'  National 
Council  instead  of  representing  all  those  organizations  ?  You  repre- 
sent, do  you  not,  the  Farmers'  National  Council  and  its  program 
of  reconstruction? 

Mr.  MARSH.  As  adopted  by  these  farmers'  organization. 

Mr.  WHITE.  You  represent  the  Farmers'  National  Council? 

Mr.  MARSH.  For  instance,  to  illustrate,  when  we  were  down  before 
the  Shipping  Board  conference  the  other  day,  Mr.  Hurley  raised  the 
question,  or  some  one  raised  the  question  of  whether  we  were  repre- 
senting the  organization  we  claimed  to  represent,  and  Dr.  J.  W.  Long, 
secretary-treasurer  of  the  American  Society  of  Equity,  announced 
that  they  did  officially  indorse  this  program. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Have  you  presented  your  program  to  the  committee  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  A  summary  of  this  and  the  program  also  went  to  every 
Member  of  Congress. 

Mr.  BAKER.  Have  you  presented  it  to  the  committee  to-day  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  SNELL.  What  was  your  position  before  you  took  this  position 
here  in  Washington? 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  am  glad  to  explain  that. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Have  you  put  a  copy  of  your  program  in  the  record? 


392  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  have  a  brief  statement  of  it  here  in  writing. 

Mr.  SNELL.  What  was  your  business  before  you  took  this  posi- 
tion here  in  Washington  as  the  representative  of  this  organization? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Do  you  mean  to  ask  what  my  position  was? 

Mr.  SNELL.  Yes ;  what  was  your  business  before  that  time  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  worked  about  all  of  my  way  through  college. 

Mr.  SNELL.  I  did  not  mean  to  go  away  back  there,  but  what  wa- 
your  position  before  you  took  this  position  here  in  Washington  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  worked  on  a  farm;  and  it  was  there,  gentlemen, 
that  I  got  all  my  training  as  a  farmer  and  my  insight  into  the 
farmers'  problems.  Then,  I  lived  for  11  years,*  and  until  I  came 
down  here,  in  the  worst  congested  and  most  inhuman  city  in  the 
world — New  York — in  slum  districts,  and  I  have  been  in  every  dis- 
trict in  New  York.  I  was  interested  in  coming  down  here,  because 
I  know  that  it  is  the  effort  of  the  privileged  classes  to  try  to  pull  the 
farmers  and  the  laborers  apart.  I  know  how  important  it  was  to 
prevent  that  and  to  demonstrate  the  common  interest  of  the  farmers 
and  working  men  in  America.  In  that  I  do  not  mean  to  imply  by 
any  means  that  the  farmers  are  not  workers,  because  I  often  put  in 
14  hours  a  day  on  the  farm.  Before  that  I  was  for  several  years  in 
New  York  the  secretary  of  the  congestion  committee,  secretary  of 
the  committee  on  the  high  cost  of  living,  secretary  of  the  lower 
rents  society,  secretary  of  the  league  for  municipar  ownership  a  nil 
operation  of  New  York  Cit}7,  and  secretary  of  the  association  for  an 
equitable  Federal  income  tax.  I  have  always  managed  to  do  several 
men's  work  on  one-third  of  a  man's  salary. 

Mr.  SNELL.  You  have  been  interested  lately  in  farmers'  organiza- 
tions? 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  happen  to  have  met  the  leaders  and  to  have  had 
correspondence  with  most  of  the  leaders  of  the  farmers'  organi- 
zations before  I  came  here,  and  I  am  sure  you  gentlemen  will  agree 
with  me  that  in  a  spirit  of  self-determination  it  is  entirely  up  to  the 
farmers'  representatives  themselves  to  decide  whether  or  not  they 
like  me.  and  when  they  do  not  want  me  I  think  it  will  be  within 
their  scope  to  fire  me. 

Mr.  SNELL.  That  is  not  what  I  was  interested  in.  I  was  interested 
to  know  what  your  experience  had  been. 

Mr.  MARSH.  'My  experience  has  always  been  in  fighting  the  privi- 
leged interests  who  carry  America  around  in  their  vest  pockets, 
and  I  thought  this  was  a  splended  opportunity  to  come  down  here 
right  in  the  center  of  things,  and  I  cheerfully  accepted  Mr.  Hamp- 
ton's invitation  to  come  down  here. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Would  you  call  yourself  an  economist  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  At  college  I  was  regarded  as  so  excruciatingly  eru- 
dite that  I  was  given  the  scholarship  key,  and  I  attended  the  gradu- 
ate school  of  the  Chicago  University  and  of  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania  for  four  years,  but  I  have  been  able  to  live  doAvn  most 
of  the  rot  they  taught  me  there.  I  am  not  an  economist,  but  I  am  a 
student  of  economics. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  been  circularizing  Congress  for  the  past 
year  or  two  and  have  written  a  number  of  letters,  or  are  you  that 
same  Mr.  Marsh  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  T  am  Mr.  Marsh,  although  there  may  be  some  other 
Mr.  Marsh. 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  393 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  your  reconstruction  policy  and  program  I  find 
this  under  subdivision  -2,  under  the  head  of  "  Transportation  " :  "  The 
Government  should  acquire  and  operate  all  the  railroad  systems  ot 
the  country/'  Now,  I  do  not  want  to  go  into  an  academic  discussion 
of  that  matter  at  all,  but  is  it  vour  contention  that  the  Grange  advo- 
cates that? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Do  you  mean  the  National  Grange? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  MARSH.  No,  sir ;  the  National  Grange  has  never  gone  on  record 
as  being  in  favor  of  Government  ownership  and  operation.  Let  me 
illustrate  that :  Dr.  Atkeson  appeared  as  opposing  the  Government 
ownership  and  operation  of  railroads,  and  he  made  a  statement  to  the 
committee  that  if  the  National  Grange  asked  me  to  come  down  here 
before  Congress  and  try  to  prove  that  black  was  white,  I  would  do 
my  best  to  prove  it.  t  would  not  assume  to  do  that,  but  I  would 
resign  first. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  care  to  go  into  that.  I  just  wanted  to 
know  whether  or  not  they  did  advocate  it. 

Mr.  MARSH.  The  National  Grange  has  not  adopted  any  resolutions 
against  it.  Let  me  say  this,  that  when  the  resolution  to  indorse  Gov- 
ernment ownership  and  operation  of  railroads  was  introduced  at  the 
Syracuse  convention  of  the  National  Grange  last  November,  instead 
of  having  it  discussed,  the  president  of  the  Pennsylvania  State 
Grange  moved  to  table  the  resolution,  but  that  proceeding  hardly 
gives  the  national  grangers'  opinion  upon  the  subject. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Just  a  moment,  if  you  please;  I  do  not  care  to  go 
into  the  reasons  as  to  why  it  was  or  was  not  adopted."  Do  you  con- 
tend that  the  Grange  of  the  State  of  Oregon  is  in  favor  of  Govern- 
ment ownership  of  railroads? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Yes,  sir.  The  master  of  the  Oregon  State  Grange,  Mr. 
C.  E.  Spcnce.  introduced  a  resolution  in  the  National  Grange  favor- 
ing Government  ownership  and  operation.  I  beg  your  pardon 
there — it  was  Mr.  Bouck  who  introduced  it  and  Mr.  Spence  sec- 
onded it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  any  record  evidence  of  that,  or  have  you 
a  copy  of  the  resolution? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Yes.  sir;  Mr.  Bouck  introduced  the  resolution  and 
Mr.  Spence  seconded  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  wish  you  would  produce  those  resolutions. 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  will  ask,  Mr.  Chairman,  again  regarding  answering 
these  questions  that  have  been  raised,  that  Mr.  George  P.  Hampton, 
the  managing  director,  may  come  here  and  make  this  statement. 
Looking  over  the  record,  I  do  not  see  that  these  questions  were  ad- 
dressed to  Dr.  Atkeson. 

Mr.  VAILE.  He  only  purported  to  represent  the  National  Grange. 

Mr.  MARSH.  Did  lie  tell  you  how  many  State  granges  agreed  with 
him? 

Mr.  YAILK.  I  do  not  think  that  question  was  raised.  He  said  he 
-represented  the  membership  of  his  organization. 

Mr.  MARSH.  May  T  correct  that?  Dr.  Atkeson  knows  that  he  was 
ihcorrei't  in  stating  that  he  represents  1.000.000  farmers  or  1,000,000 
members,  because  he  does  not.  The  membership  is  only  620,000,  and 
about  half  are  women.  A  large  number  of  them  are  not  engaged  in 
farming. 


394  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  VAILE.  He  said  that  a  large  part  of  the  membership  of  the 
Grange  was  made  up  of  Avomen  and  minors. 

-  Mr.  MARSH.  It  is  not  1.000,000,  but  it  is  less  than  two-thirds  of 
that,  including  10  per  cent  for  those  who  arc  temporarily  in  arrears. 
There  are  about  750,000  farmers  and  others,  but  almost  exclusively 
farmers,  in  the  organizations  which  unites  in  this  reconstruction 
program.  The  National  Nonpartisan  League  is  composed  entirely 
of  farmers. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  many  farmers  did  you  say  indorsed  that 
reconstruction  program  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  There  are  about  750,000  in  the  farm  organizations 
which  indorsed  it.  I  have  not  the  result  of  the  poll  I  am  making 
among  masters  of  State  granges  and  among  presidents  of  State 
farmers'  unions  to  know  how  they  stand  on  the  question  of  Govern- 
ment ownership  and  operation  of  railroads,  but  you  would  be  some- 
what surprised  to  know  how  the  sentiment  is  growing  for  Govern- 
ment ownership  and  operation  of  railroads  and  of  the  merchant 
marine. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Regardless  of  the  increased  freight  rates? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Let  me  illustrate  that :  When  we  went  down  to  see  the 
president,  he  stated  that  he  wished  he  could  live  on  a  farm,  because 
he  would  have  more  time  to  think.  Now,  the  farmers  have  been 
doing  a  lot  of  thinking,  and  they  know  that  the  guarantee  of  high 
dividends  was  what  produced  the  deficiency,  and  those  high 
dividends  were  guaranteed,  so  that  the  railroad  looters  among  the 
large  financia.l  interests  could  rehabilitate  themselves  during  this 
stress  of  patriotism.  They  know  that  the  high  guaranteed  dividend-, 
were  what  increased  the  freight  rates. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Just  one  other  question:  You  say  that  750.000 
farmers  indorse  this  program? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Approximately,  but  I  do  not  know  how  many  more. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Your  paragraph  7  deals  with  the  restoration  of 
personal  liberty,  and  under  that  head  you  say : 

The  espionage  law  and  all  similar  laws  enacted  to  render  American  unified 
in  the  war  must  be  repealed  and  abrogated  at  the  close  of  the  war.  All  acts 
of  Congress  and  by  State  legislatures  restricting  freedom  of  speech,  freedom  of 
publication,  freedom  of  travel,  and  freedom  of  choice  of  residence,  or  of  occupa- 
tion, and  all  executive  acts  of  the  President  and  of  the  governors  of  States  and 
Territories,  that  have  their  foundation  in  war  needs,  must  be  similarly  repealed 
or  terminated.  We  declare  for  general  amnesty  for  all  political  prisoners. 

That  is  one  of  your  plans? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Yes,  sir.  In  relation  to  that,  I  am  reminded  that  the 
party  that  kept  the  espionage  act  on  the  statute  books  after  one  of  our 
wars  died  and  has  never  been  resurrected  since. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  Victor  Berger  one  of  these  political  prisoners? 

Mr.  MARSH.  He  is  a  man  who  is  associating  with  you  people  here, 
and  I  do  not  think  that  this  is  a  prison, 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  You  do  not  see  me  associating  with  him. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  political  prisoners  are  referred  to  here? 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  will  be  glad  to  submit  the  view  of  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral of  the  United  States  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  GANBY.  Was  Haywood  one  of  the  political  prisoners? 

Mr.  MARSH.  That  setems  to  be  a  matter  the  Attorney  General  at- 
tempts to  decide.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  although  that  is  a 


HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS.  395 

matter  which  the  Attorney  General  has  attempted  to  decide,  that 
in  fact  what  constitutes  a  political  prisoner  must  be  a  matter  for  the 
determination  of  Congress. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  Mr.  Debbs  one  of  them  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  do  not  know  whether  Mr.  Debbs  is  included  or  not, 
but  I  will  illustrate  further  as  to  what  might  be  political  prisoners. 
A  year  ago  this  month  the  Washington  State  Grange  was  broken 
up  on  charges  of  disloyalty.  Finally  the  matter  came  here.  Mr. 
Hampton  was  out  there,  and  a  long  telegram  was  sent  to  the  Presi- 
dent. I  know  that  the  Attorney  General  investigated  that  case  right 
to  the  bottom,  and  found  that  there  was  not  the  slightest  evidence 
against  them. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  your  view. 

Mr.  MARSH.  No,  sir:  it  was  not  my  view,  but  it  was  the  view  of  the 
Attorney  General  of  the  United  States,  who  would  not  institute  any 
proceedings  against  them. 

Mr.  RAKER.  They  were  not  prosecuted  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  No,~  sir ;  I  did  not  say  they  were  prosecuted. 

Mr.  RAKER.  They  could  not  be  political  "prisoners  unless  they  are 
held. 

Mr.  MARSH.  They  were  trying  to  do  the  usual  thing,  and  you  gen- 
tlemen realize  deep  down  in  your  own  hearts  that  every  predatory 
interest  in  America  tried  to  railroad  to  jail  every  farmer  and  labor- 
ing man  who  favored  a  real  economic  democracy  here  in  America. 
You  gentlemen  know  that  as  well  as  I  do. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Mr.  Chairman,  would  it  not  be  a  good  idea  to  get  his 
views  on  the  bill  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  You  are  welcome  to  all  of  my  views  on  all  these  sub- 
jects. I  wish  I  could  print  that  in  every  paper  in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  In  regard  to  the  breaking  up  of  the  State  grange 
meeting  in  the  State  of  Washington  last  year,  I  would  like  to  say 
that  that  meeting  was  held  in  a  high  school  building,  under  per- 
mission granted  for  the  holding  of  the  State  grange  meeting.  There 
came  about  a  very  decided  division  in  that  grange  as  to  whether  or 
not  the  nonpartisan  league  principles  should  be  there  advocated, 
and  speakers  for  the  nonpartisan  league  were  there  introduced  and 
it  became  quite  largely  a  nonpartisan  league  meeting.  For  that  rea- 
son the  school  board  said  that  they  must  vacate  the  building. 

Mr.  MARSH.  Mr.  Chairman,  permit  me  to  question  the  accuracy  of 
the  gentleman's  information.  Mr.  Hampton,  who  was  there  'and 
who  handled  the  case  for  them 

The  CHAIRMAN  (interposing).  We  do  not  care  to  go  into  that  mat- 
ter at  length. 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  thought,  perhaps,  there  had  been  some  sort  of  mis- 
apprehension, I  wish  you  would  let  me  finish  with  the  rest  of 
these  questions,  because'  I  submit  it  is  not  fair  to  not  allow  me 
to  complete  my  answer. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  gone  into  the  bill — 

Mr.  MARSH  (interposing).  I  beg  pardon,  you  gentlemen  have 
raised  matters  that  are  utterly  irrelevant  to  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  you  have  covered  the  matter. 

Mr.  MARSH.  No,  sir;  I  respectfully  ask  the  right  to  go  on. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  you  have;  and  you  may  proceed  now 
upon  the  bill.  You  may  proceed  now  to  discuss  the  bill. 


396  HOMES    FOR    SOLDI  Kits. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Let  me  ask  him  a  <|iiestion.  Mr.  Chairman,  before  he 
proceeds.  Have  yon  here  in  the  room  the  program  that  your  people 
are  desirous  of  carrying1  out,  and  Avhich  you  claim  is  opposed  to  the 
contemplated  legislation  for  providing  homes  for  soldiers?  Have 
you  that  program  here  in  writing? 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  have  the  printed  program  here. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Let  me  have  it. 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  want  to  read  a  little  section  of  it. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  would  like  to  ask  the  chairman  of  the  committee  to 
have  this  program  made  a  part  of  the  record,  and  that  the  gentleman 
be  given  an  opportunity  to  discuss  the  bill. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Without  objection,  it  will  l>e  inserted  in  the 
record. 

(The  matter  referred  to  is  as  follows:) 

UKcoNSTUrrnoN  POLICY  A\I>  l'i:o«i!.\M  01    AMKIMCAN   KAKMKHS. 

<  Xlicially  am)  unanimously  adopted  :ii  the  farmers'  national  conference  on 
reconstruct  ion  in  America  and  international  reconstruction  Meld  at  the  National 
Hotel,  Washington.  I  >.  ('..  .January  7.  X.  and  i),  1919.  Tlie  conference  was 
attended  by  representatives  ,,r  the  American  Society  of  Equity,  the  National 
Gleaner  Federation,  the  National  Xon-Partisan  League,  several  State  granges. 
State  farmers'  unions,  the  stock  growers',  wheat  growers',  and  dairymen's  asso- 
ciations, with  a  total  membership  of  7r>0,(MHt.  and  a  number  of  smaller  organiza- 
tions. Six  weeks  prior  to  the  assembling  of  the  conference  a  special  joint  com- 
mittee of  the  leadiag  farm  organizations  met  at  the  farmers'  national  head- 
quarters. Washington,  D.  C.,  and  drafted  a  tentative  reconstruction  prom-am, 
This  tentative  program  was  published  extensively  in  the  farm  press  and  sub- 
mitted to  the  farm  organizations  for  discussion,  and  made  the  basis  of  instruc- 
tions to  the  delegates  to  the  ollicial  conference. 

This  program  thus  carefully  considered  includes  the  chief  measures  which 
united  farmers  will  seek  to  have  adopted  as  the  permanent  policy  of  the 
country.  It  can  accur.ttely  be  designated  :  "  The  fighting  reconstruction  program 
of  the  forward-looking  fanners  of  America." 

I.    FOR  ECONOMIC  RECONSTRUCTION   IN    AMKRICA. 

The  World  War  has  brought  up  for  solution  modern  problems  of  production 
and  distribution  of  food  and  farm  staples.  We  farmers  have  realized  to  the 
full  the  important  role  which  we  must  play  in  war  as  well  as  in  peace.  We 
have  responded  in  measure  up  to  our  capacity.  But  with  the  coming  of  peace 
these  problems  are  not  settled,  but  are  accentuated.  During  the  war  we  have 
voluntarily  governed  our  activities  in  conformity  with  the  wishes  of  our  Com- 
mander in  Chief,  solidly  standing  by  our  country  in  its  hour  of  need,  feeding 
our  armies  and  our  allies,  even  though  the  dislocation  of  labor  conditions  com- 
pelled superhuman  effort  to  do  it. 

It  is  impossible  for  us  to  organize  in  militant  fashion  for  our  own  defense- 
Nothing  could  justify  a  threat  on  our  part  to  refuse  to  produce  and  thereby 
inflict  hunger,  and  we  are  therefore  justified  in  demanding  of  the  Government, 
of  which  we  are  no  inconsiderable  part,  definite  action  that  will  lead  to  greater 
production  and  to  cheapened  distribution. 

Xot  all  of  our  institutions  could  stand  the  strain  or  meet  the  exigencies  of 
war.  however,  and  our  Government  was  compelled  to  take  over,  operate  or 
control,  many  agencies  of  production  and  distribution  of  food,  namely,  railroads. 
shipping,  express,  telephone,  telegraph,  mills,  elevators,  packing  houses,  cold 
storage,  and  wholesale  and  retail  dealers— a  degree  of  governmental  interfer- 
ence necessary  to  compel  these  agencies  to  function  successfully  in  the  crisis, 
varying  from  complete  Government  ownership  and  operation  to  licensing  with 
strict  supervision.  By  these  means  a  wise  statemanship  prevented  hunger  and 
defeat  in  the  war.  Wheat  is  not  ready  for  consumption  when  it  leaves  our 
hands.  The  wool  is  not  ready  to  wear  as  it  leaves  the  ranch:  the  meat  is  not 
ready  for  the  table  as  it  leaves  the  stall  or  sty.  It  is  necessary  to  use  the 
mill,  the  elevator,  the  factory,  the  railway,  the  packing  bouse,  and  cold  storage 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  397 

before  these  products  are  prepared  for  human  consumption.  The  transfer  of  the 
ownership  of  these  commodities  on  their  way  from  the  producer  to  the  ultimate 
consumer  goes  through  banks,  chambers  of  commerce,  commission  houses 
wholesale  and  retail  stores.  These,  then,  are  the  channels  of  trade  through 
which  our  products  flow  from  the  producer  to  the  consumer.  Monopoly  control 
of  these  channels  is  a  constant  menace  to  the  welfare  of  our  people  and  of  the 
world.  These  channels  must  be  public  or  subject  to  public  control,  or  no  eco- 
nomic freedom  can  exist.  It  is  to  the  mutual  advantage  of  both  producer  and 
consumer  to  have  open  access  to  these  channels  of  trade.  The  unrestrained 
greed  of  the  private  owners  of  these  channels  threatened  disaster  to  our  arm? 
and  those  of  our  allies,  through  their  excessive  tolls.  Government  control,  and 
in  many  instances  Government  ownership  and  operation,  was  necessary  to 
allow  the  flow  of  trade  to  continue.  Idle  cars  by  thousands  encumbered  our 
railways  while  lack  of  cars  threatened  our  industries  and  our  homes  with 
shortage  of  coal  and  food.  Our  supplies  were  ample  and  to  spare,  but  we  could 
not  move  them  to  the  consumer.  Commission  houses  and  speculators  at  times 
joined  hands  to  make  available  food  so  scarce  that  our  workers  could  not  buy 
it,  while  we  who  produced  by  endless  toil  could  not  sell  it  to  them  at  any  price. 
Packing  houses  and  cold-storage  concerns  hoarded  our  supplies  while  refusing 
to  pay  sufficient  wages  to  employees  to  enable  them  to  live  and  maintain  the 
necessary  physical  vigor  to  carry  on  their  work,  or  to  purchase  at  reasonable 
prices  the  food  we  raised  for  them. 

The  Government  wisely  came  to  the  rescue,  and  happily  the  difficulties  pecu- 
liar to  the  world  crisis  were  in  a  degree  overcome.  But  with  the  coming  of 
peace  the  problems  are  no  less  serious  and  no  less  difficult  of  solution.  Labor 
conditions  have  been  dislocated  by  the  war.  Commercial  conditions  affecting 
farm  produce  have  been  turned  upside  down  and  inside  out  by  the  necessary 
price  fixing  of  some  commodities  and  stimulation  of  production  of  others.  The 
destination  of  huge  quantities  of  farm  and  manufactured  products  must  now  be 
changed  and  the  channels  of  trade  opened  anew  in  other  direction.  Millions  of 
men  and  women  with  the  will  to  do  their  share  of  the  world's  work  must  divert 
their  energies  from  war  work,  now  unnecessary,  to  tasks  of  peace.  Happily  we 
have  vast  stores  of  natural  resources  upon  which  they  may  expend  their  labor 
in  producing  those  things  which  keep  the  wheels  of  industry  turning.  The 
world  want,  created  by  the  war.  provides  ample  demand  for  the  product  of 
their  toil.  It  was  important  that  all  be  fed  during  the  war;  it  is  no  less  Im- 
portant now.  Sound  statesmanship  will  prevent  the  clogging  of  the  channels 
of  trade  now.  as  well  as  in  war.  and  we  therefore  demand  as  a  minimum  pro- 
gram for  reconstruction  the  following  measures,  the  efficiency  of  which  have 
been  demonstrated  during  the  war : 

1.  Natural  resources. — The  natural  resources  of  the  country,  now  in  public 
ownership — coal,  iron  and  copper  ores,  water  power,  timberlands,  phosphate 
deposits,  potash,  gas,  oil,  etc. — are  worth  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars.     It 
is  a  solemn  obligation  devolving  upon  the  country  not  to  alienate  any  more  of 
these  natural  resources  either  by  patent  or  by  lease,  but  to  develop  and  hold 
them  in  trust  for  this  and  succeeding  generations.     Such  of  these  natural  re- 
sources as  are  now  in  private  ownership  should  be  acquired  by  the  Government 
at  the  earliest  possible  opportunity,  payment  to  be  only  for  actual  and  prudent 
investment. 

2.  Transportation.— "Within  21  months  following  the  close  of  the  war,  at  the 
expiration  of  which  the  railroads  would  otherwise  be  returned  to  their  present 
owners,  the  Government  should  acquire  and  operate  all  the  railroad  systems  of 
the  country,  and  within  the  same  period  acquire  and  operate  pipe  lines  and 
express  companies,  and  the  Government  should  operate  all  inland  water  trans- 
portation so  that  we  may  have  a  unified  system  of  transportation  of  passengers 
and  freight  as  a  Government  service.    This  service  should  be  rendered  ai  cost, 
with  the  single  view  of  reducing  cost  of  transportation,  securing  fair  treatment 
of  those  employed,  and  facilitating  the  development  and  expansion  of  domes!  j.- 
manufacturing,  and  of  domestic  and  foreign  commerce.     In  making  payment 
for  railroads  and  other  means  of  transportation,  the  guaranteed  payment  dur- 
ing war  time  should  not  be  made  a  precedent,  and  the  people  should  pay  the 
owners  thereof  only  for  prudent  investment. 

Enormous  sums  have  been  expended  by  the  Government  in  constructing  ships. 
The  ships  so  constructed  at  Government  expense  should  remain  the  property  of 
the  people  of  the  country  and  should  be  operated  as  a  merchant  marine  for  the 
benefit  of  the  people  as  a  whole  with  due  regard  to  terms  and  conditions  of 
employment. 


398  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

3.  Packing  plants. — The  revelations  by  the  Federal  Trade  Commission  of  the 
monopolistic  control  which  the  "  Big  Five "  packers  have  established  in  the 
business  of  the  manufacture  and  preparation  of  meat  their  effort  to  control  the 
entire  food  supply  of  the  country,  and  their  entrance  into  allied  and  unrelated 
lines  of  business — an  exposure  revealing  the  direct  connection  and  vital  iden- 
tity of  interests  of  the  packers  and  the  big  financial  interests  of  the  country — 
make  it  clear  that  the  privileges  which  have  enabled  the  packers  to  build  up 
such  a  monopoly  must  be  immediately  terminated.    The  four  following  recom 
mendations  of  the  Federal  Trade  Commission  to  deal  with  the  packing  situa- 
tion should  be  adopted  as  the  permanent  policy  of  the  country. 

That  the  Government  acquire: 

"  (1)  All  rolling  stock  used  for  the  transportation  of  meat  animals  and  that 
such  ownership  be  declared  a  Government  monopoly. 

"  (2)  The  principal  and  necessary  stockyards  of  the  country  to  be  treated  as 
freight  depots  and  to  be  operated  under  such  conditions  as  will  insure  open, 
competitive  markets,  with  uniform  scale  of  charges  for  all  services  performed, 
and  the  acquisition  or  establishment  of  such  additional  yards  from  time  to  time 
as  the  future  development  of  live-stock  production  in  the  United  States  may 
require.  This  to  include  customary  adjuncts  of  stockyards. 

"  (3)  All  privately  owned  refrigerator  cars  and  all  necessary  equipment  for 
their  proper  operation  and  that  such  ownership  be  declared  a  Government 
monopoly. 

"  (4)  Such  of  the  branch  houses,  cold-storage  plants,  and  warehouses  as  are 
necessary  to  provide  facilities  for  the  competitive  marketing  and  storage  of 
food  products  in  the  principal  centers  of  distribution  and  consumption.  The 
same  to  be  operated  by  the  Government  as  public  markets  and  storage  places 
under  such  conditions  as  will  afford  an  outlet  for  all  manufacturers  and  han- 
dlers of  food  products  on  equal  terms.  Supplementing  the  marketing  and  stor- 
age facilities  thus  acquired,  the  Federal  Government  establish  through  the 
Federal  Administration,  at  the  terminals  of  all  principal  points  of  distribu- 
tion and  consumption,  central  wholesale  markets,  and  storage  plants  with 
facilities  open  to  all  upon  payment  of  just  and  fair  charges." 

Slaughterhouses  should  be  constructed  near  sources  of  supply  and  municipal 
slaughterhouses  in  all  important  cities. 

4.  Demobilization. — To  secure  the  transition  from  a  war  basis  to  an  eco- 
nomically sound  and  ethical  peace  basis  of  industry,  we  believe  the  following 
measures  are  essential : 

(a)  Every  nation  of  the  world,  at  least  our  own  nation  and  those  with  which 
we  have  been  associated  in  this  war,  should  immediately  make  an  inventory 
of  its  stocks  of  essential  goods  on  hand,  to  ascertain  in  what  industries  maxi- 
mum production  is   essential,   and   priority   of  material,    transportation,   fuel, 
and  labor  should  be  accorded  to  these  industries. 

(b)  Those  now  engaged  in  industries  directly  connected  with  the  war  should 
be  transferred  to  the  industries  essential  in  peace  as  rapidly  as  possible,  and 
plants  now  engaged  in  war  industries  should  be  converted  to  peace  purposes, 
while  semiessential  industries  classed  as  nonessential  during  the  war  should 
be  encouraged  to  maximum  production. 

(c)  In  view  of  the  world's  shortage  of  foodstuffs,  men  in  the  Army  and 
Navy  training  camps  in  this  country  and  soldiers  abroad  who  have  had  ex- 
perience in  farming  and  those  essential  to  the  transportation  and  distribution 
of  farm  products  should  be  discharged  first  and  provision  made  to  secure  them 
employment  in  agriculture  at  the  earliest  possible  moment.    Men  not  experienced 
in  farming  but  who  wish  to  farm  should  be  encouraged  to  do  so  by  the  adoption 
of  a  system  similar  to  that  which  has  proven  so  successful  in  the  settlement  of 
soldiers  in  the  Province  of  Ontario  through  the  provision  of  training  for  agri- 
culture, with  adequate  payment  during  such  period. 

(d)  Men  in  the  Army  and  Navy  who  do  not  wish  to  enter  in  schools  estab- 
lished for  that  purpose  should  be  given  vocational  training  until  such  time  as 
they  can  be  absorbed  by  the  peace  industries  of  the  country.    Men  in  the  serv- 
ice overseas  should  be  similarly  trained  and  discharged  by  industries  as  indus- 
trial opportunity  develops. 

(e)  Federal,  State,  and  local  governments  should  also  immediately  plan  con- 
struction of  public  improvements  in  order  of  urgency,  so  that  when  due  to  indus- 
trial or  economic  crises  any  large  number  of  men  or  women  are  unemployed 
they  may  find  work  at  fair  rates  on  governmental  undertakings.     Kxtension  of 
railroad*,  reclamation  work,  reforestation,  and  land  clearing  and  preparation, 
(lie  development   ol'   highways,   waterways,   and   other  public  works  should   he 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  399 

similarly  planned  in  order  of  urgency  to  prevent  the  unemployment  which 
would  otherwise  follow  the  end  of  the  war. 

5.  Agriculture. — Though  this  country  has  the  best  natural  opportunities  for 
agriculture  in  the  world,  farming  has  been  the  most  unprofitable  industry  in  the 
country.  The  farmer  and  the  farmer's  family  have  not  shared  appreciably  in 
the  increasing  wealth  of  the  country  to  which  they  have  contributed  the  largest 
share.  They  have  toiled  longer  hours  and  more  arduously  than  any  other  class 
of  workers  in  the  country,  but  with  meager  financial  returns.  They  have  always 
taken  heavy  risks  and  gambled  with  nature,  with  the  possibility  of  small  gains 
and  the  probability  of  large  losses. 

Among  the  essentials  to  place  farming  on  a  sound  basis  are  the  following : 

(a)  The  establishment  of  a  sound  and  economical  method  of  marketing 
farm  products.  Existing  wasteful  methods  of  distributing  farm  products  belong 
to  an  outworn  age.  Thousands  of  unnecessary  middlemen  intervene  between 
the  producers  and  the  consumers  of  farm  products.  These  must  be  eliminated, 
and  direct,  free,  and  open  channels  established — either  through  cooperation  or 
direct  Government  operation — all  the  way  through,  from  farm  producer  to  ulti- 
mate consumer.  Municipal  slaughterhouses,  warehouses,  and  cold  and  common 
storage  warehouses  must  be  established  in  large  centers  of  consumption  as  a 
part  of  this  system  of  distributing  farm  products,  while  centralized  wholesale 
and  retailing  plants  must  be  established  under  municipal  ownership  or  control. 

(ft)  Credit  must  be  made  as  available  and  as  cheap  to  farming  as  to  any 
other  legitimte  and  responsible  industry.  The  farm-land  banks,  while  service- 
able in  this  direction,  fail  in  large  measure  to  make  increased  production  pos- 
sible. Like  collateral  loans  in  commercial  banking  practice,  they  rely  for  se- 
curity upon  existing  values,  and  fail  to  aid  in  productive  operations  in  the  way 
that  the  banks  through  commercial  loans  aid  in  production  and  distribution.  A 
farmer  owning  high-priced  land  is  not  the  man  in  most  urgent  need  of  Govern- 
ment assistance,  but  rather  the  man  endeavoring  to  produce  from  land  of  initial 
small  value  crops  that  require  intensive  cultivation  and  sometimes  the  lapse 
of  years. 

The  need  of  such  credit  can  not  be  met  by  mortgage  security.  The  funds 
should  be  available  through  regional  agencies,  wherein  cooperative  guaranties 
are  secured  for  repayment  in  due  season. 

Without  such  a  system  vast  areas  of  our  country  must  lie  idle  except  as 
they  are  redeemed  by  the  application  of  great  sums  of  private  capital,  which 
are  seldom  available,  and,  even  if  available,  lead  to  tenancy  rather  than  to 
independent  operation.  Land-mortgage  credit  can  never  benefit  existing 
tenants,  any  more  than  it  can  result  in  adequate  development  of  productive 
possibility. 

(c)  The  present  unrestrained  system  of  land  tenure  must  be  terminated. 
Vast  holdings  of  productive  fertile  lands  in  a  single  ownership  is  detrimental 
to  all  legitimate  agricultural  interests.  Tenant  farming  should  be  replaced  by 
the  more  responsible  system  of  cultivation  by  owners.  Taxation  should  be 
used  as  a  remedy  to  force  into  productivity  idle  acres  held  for  speculation. 

(<n  Terminal  elevators  should  be  considered  a  part  of  a  Government  owned 
or  controlled  transportation  system.  They  should  be  made  the  means  of  afford-' 
ing  service  to  farmers  and  consumers.  Even  if  segregated  from  the  transporta- 
tion systems,  they  should  be  either  controlled  in  the  interest  of  public  service 
or  should  be  subject  to  direct  public  ownership  and  operation.  Their  past  his- 
tory has  too  often  shown  them  to  be  a  power  used  for  speculation  and  oppres- 
sion. This  must  be  ended. 

(e)  We  as  farmers  appreciate  that  in  a  great  measure  the  responsibility  for 
carrying  out  this  program  rests  upon  us.  We  commend  the  various  farm 
organizations  for  the  work  already  done. 

It  is  only  by  organization  with  complete  coordination  of  organized  effort  that 
success  will  crown  our  work. 

We  believe  that  the  foregoing  measures  will  aid  the  farmers  in  their  indis- 
pensable task ;  that  they  will  break  monopoly  control  and  end  unearned  profits 
from  speculation  in  farm  products ;  and  that  they  will  effect  a  reduction  in  the 
costs  of  living  that  will  enable  productive  consumers  to  maintain  and  to  raise 
their  present  standard  of  living. 

G.  ^Yar  finance. — The  enormous  outlay  necessary  for  winning  the  war  will 
have  increased  the  interest-bearing  national  debt  twenty  to  twenty-five  fold. 
The  ending  of  the  war  has  incited  those  who  profited  enormously  by  these 
war  expenditures  to  seek  to  avoid  the  payment  of  their  fair  share  of  its  costs. 
The  making  of  large  profits  was  inevitable  under  the  stress  of  war  times.  The 
133319—19 2« 


400  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

test  of  democracy  is  whether  those  who  have  profited  so  enormously  from 
the  necessities  of  their  fellow  beings  and  from  Government  expenditures  shall' 
be  compelled  to  pay  back  the  major  portion  of  their  excess  war  profits  as  taxes, 
and  whether  the  few  who  before  the  war  owned  a  large  proportion  of  the 
wealth  of  the  country  shall  equally  pay  their  share  of  war  costs.  America's 
wealthiest  and  most  privileged  seek -to  escape  their  share  of  these  costs.  We 
demand  that  the  rates  of  taxation  on  excess  and  war  profits,  incomes,  and  in- 
heritances which  have  in  a  measure  been  imposed,  as  urged  by  the  Nation's 
workers  for  the  war  period,  shall  be  levied  until  the  full  cost  of  the  war  has 
been  paid,  in  order  that  the  farmers  and  other  workers  of  the  country  may 
not  be  compelled  to  carry  the  financial  burden,  as  they  have  borne  the  major 
part  of  the  toil  and  effort  in  the  winning  of  this  war.  and  that  to  this  end 
there  be  applied  remedial  taxes  that  will  force  into  use  unused  lands  and  other 
resources  now  specula tively  held. 

7.  Restoration  of  personal  liberty. — The  espionage  law  and  all  similar  laws 
enacted  to  render  America  unified  in  the  war  must  be  repealed  and  abrogated 
at  the  close  of  the  war.     All  acts  of  Congress  and  of  State  legislatures  restrict- 
ing freedom  of  speech,  freedom  of  publication,  freedom  of  travel,  and  freedom 
of  choice  of  residence  or  of  occupation,  and  all  Executive  acts  of  the  Presi- 
dent and  of  governors  of  States  and  Territories  that  have  their  foundation  in 
%var  needs  must  be  similarly  repealed  or  terminated.     We  declare  for  general 
amnesty  for  all  political  prisoners. 

8.  Labor  and  ivages. — The  dislocation  of  industry  necessarily  occasioned  by 
the  whole-hearted  commitment  of  this  country  to  the  sole  purpose  of  winning 
the  war  presents  problems  requiring  careful  governmental  action.     The  principle 
must  be  fully  established  and   universally   recognized   that  labor  is  the  first 
fixed  charge  upon  all  industry,  taking  precedence  of  the  claims  of  property  and 
investment  in  business  and  commerce.     This  is  essential  to  securing  the  well- 
being  of  our  people,  and  the  industrial  and  economic  democracy  for  which  our 
men  have  striven.     Living  wages  to  those  engaged  in  industry,  commerce,  trade, 
mining,  railroading,  and  in  all  other  legitimate  activities,  are  a  direct  benefit 
to  farmers  because  they  increase  the  purchasing  power  of  those  so  engaged,  and 
not  only  increase  the  efficiency  of  these  workers,  but  provide  the  most  economic 
and  advantageous  market  for  farm  products — a  home  market. 

9.  Equal  auffrage. — We  urge  passage  by  the  United  States  Senate  of  the  pend- 
ing Susan  B.  Anthony  amendment  of  the  Constitution  giving  full  stiffrage  to 
women. 

10.  Education. — Education  is  the  basis  of  all  progress.     Rural  education  sets 
the  solid  standards  of  our  citizenship  and  our  patriotism.     It  is  here  the  ideals 
of  American  Government  find  their  bulwark.     New  and  higher  standards  of 
citizenship  must  be  set  up  in  our  rural  schools  to  meet  the  test  of  the  new 
international  ethics  that  herald  a  new  dawn  for  all  humanity.     Only  as  the 
rural  citizen  of  the  future  learns  his  true  relationship  to  industry  as  a  whole,  to 
his  own  country,  and  to  his  fellowmen  in  other  countries,   can  we  hope  for 
the  solid  upbuilding  of  our  rural  life  which  is  the  mainstay  of  our  civilization. 
As  measures  calculated  to  bring  about  this  result  we  favor: 

(a)  Raising  the  standards  of  teachers  through   higher  wages  and  special 
courses  of  instruction  for  rural  teachers. 

(b)  Introducing  democracy  by  organizing  into  self-governing  bodies  as  far  as 
possible  all  rural  schools,  the  children  learning  government  by  governing  them- 
selves. 

(c)  Teaching  agriculture  from  an  inspirational  viewpoint. 

(d)  Federal  aid  in  scholarships  for  rural  teachers. 

(e)  Teaching  industrial  history,  and  farm  economics,  and  marketing. 

(/)    Teaching  a   broader  patriotism   based  upon   the  establishment  of  justice 
in  all  relationships  of  industry  and  commerce,  both  national  and  international. 
(ff)   Teaching  organiaztion,  cooperation,  and  cooperative  methods. 

11.  VoHi/mlxm-ii  milUan/  Irtiiiitvft. — We  are  unalterably  opposed  to  the  estab- 
lishment of  militarism  in  America  by  a  system  of  compulsory  militaristic  train- 
ing.    The  disciplinary  and  physical  benefit  of  such  training  can  be  secured  by 
the  organization  of  physical  training  in  our  schools. 

12.  Use  of  troojm  in  cnforcint/  htlcrnal  reform. — We  demand  that  American 
troops  should  not  be  used  to  fasten  on  any  people  any  form  of  government.     We 
call  upon  our  Government  to  formulaic  a   plan  for  the  speedy   withdrawal  of 
foreign  troops  from  Russia  and  to  proffer  to  the  Russian  people  all  possible  aid 
and   assistance  to  enable  that   nation    to   evolve  a    stable   government   and   to 
attain  just  economic,  industrial,  and  social  conditions. 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  401 

13.  Public  lu'dltli.-  We  urge  adequate  financial  supi>ort  by  Congress  for  the 
necessary  extension  of  the  work  of  the  United  States  Public  Health  Service ; 
provision  for  a  greatly  increased  number  of  public  health  nurses  in  rural  dis- 
tricts, such  service  to  be  uoncompulsory. 

14.  International  congress  of  farmers. — We  indorse  and  approve  the  idea  of 
an  international  congress  of  farmers  to  sit  at  the  same  time  and  place  as  the 
official  peace  conference  to  consider  their  mutual  interests  in : 

(a)   Peace  terms. 
(6)   Production  of  food, 
(c)   International  marketing. 

id)  Closer  relations  and  better  understanding  between  the  tillers  of  the 
soil  in  all  countries. 

II.    FOR   IN'TKKNATIONAL  RECONSTRUCTION. 

The  war  to  end  war  has  been  won.  The  right  of  all  peoples,  large  and  small, 
weak  and  strong,  to  maintain  unmolested  by  external  intervention  their  own 
standard  of  democracy  has  been  established.  The  world  has  learned  by  the 
tragic  suffering  of  over  four  years  of  armed  conflict  that  political,  financial, 
commercial,  industrial,  and  imperial  autocracy  must  end ;  that  these  several 
manifestations  of  autocracy  inevitably  produce  war.  The  world  has  paid  the 
price  to  win  freedom  for  all  peoples  for  all  time.  We  must  admit  that  causes 
tending  to  war  exist  in  every  country.  The  approach  of  the  peace  conference 
challenges  the  democratic  forces  of  the  world  to  evolve  a  plan  of  cooperation 
between  the  peoples  of  the  world  which,  by  ending  the  causes  of  war,  shall 
make  another  war  impossible.  The  farmers  of  America  implicitly  follow  the 
world's  leading  Democrat,  President  Woodrow  Wilson,  in  his  determination 
to  make  this  the  world's  last  war  by  the  application  of  the  principles  which 
alone  will  prevent  war.  War  is  always  an  economic  loss — scarcely  less  serious 
to  victor  than  to  vanquished.  \Ve  hold  the  following  to  be  essential  to  prevent 
wars  between  nations  in  the  future: 

1.  Recognition  of  the  common  interests  of  the  working  people  of  all  countries, 
regardless  of  the  form  of  political  government  under  which  they  live. 

2.  International  control  over  international  trade  and  international  investment. 

3.  Freedom  of  production,  and  uniform  and  equally  free  exchange  between  all 
peoples. 

4.  Termination  of  all  secret  treaties  and  understandings  between  nations. 

5.  Gradual  reduction  of  armaments. 

6.  International  control  over  the  occupation  and  development  of  backward 
countries,  subject    always  to  the  right  of  small  and  backward  peoples  to  self- 
determination. 

7.  Complete  and  direct  control  by  the  peoples  of  every  established  country 
of  their  own  government. 

8.  Unrestricted  passage  for  legitimate  commerce  over  land  and  sea. 

9.  War  must  be  made  democratic  by  the  agreement  of  all  nations  to  declare 
war  only  by  the  majority  vote  of  all,  men  and  women. 

Wars  in  the  future  can  be  made  impossible  only  by  securing  just  economic 
conditions  and  relations  within  nations  as  well  as  between  nations.  The 
people  of  every  nation,  earnestly  desiring  that  this  war  shall  not  have  been 
fought  in  vain,  must  democratize  their  governments  if  they  would  do  their 
part  to  insure  the  establishment  of  permanent  world  peace.  But  each  nation 
must  determine  its  own  freedom  by  its  own  efforts  without  the  intervention  of 
other  nations.  Only  for  the  regulation  and  control  of  international  relations 
have  nations  the  right  to  combine  to  prevent  future  wars.  and. then  only  to 
insure  Ilie  establishment  of  democracy  between  nations  on  the  solid  basis  of 
equal  rights  for  nil  and  special  privileges  for  none.  As  democrats  of  the  soil 
and  guardians  of  the  rights  of  producers  we  feel  it  to  be  our  solemn  duty  to 
present  to  the  peace  conference  and  democrats  throughout  the  world  this  pro- 
gram, the  adoption  of  which  American  farmers  believe  will  insure  the  estate 
lishment  of  international  relations  on  a  sound,  economic,  and  just  basis,  and 
make  war  through  international  misunderstandings  impossible. 

The  league  of  nations.— Among  the  instrumentalities  of  the  league  we  believe 
the  following  to  be  essential : 

1.  An    international    investment    board.     Foreign    Investments    have    be 
prolific  source  of  misunderstanding  between  nations  and  if  unregulated  will 
the  future  lead  to  conditions  that  may  make  war  unavoidable.     We  therefore 
advocate  the  establishment  of  an  international   investment   board  whose  f 
tions  shall  be  as  follows: 


402  HOMES  FOB  SOLDIERS. 

(a)  To  prevent  the  investment  of  money  of  one  nation  in  another  unless 
justified  by  conditions  and  agreeable  to  the  nation  receiving  the  investment. 

(ft)   To  adjust  conflicting  claims  among  nations  as  to  "spheres  of  influence. 

(c)  To  prevent  the  use  of  force  by  any  nation  to  protect  or  to  promote  the 
investment  of  its  nationals,  and  to  determine  methods  of  securing  justice  to 
foreign  investors. 

2.  An  international  board  of  trade.     Tariffs  are  constantly  disturbing  factors 
and  if  any  nation  enacts  a  tariff  law,  it  should  operate  between  all  nations 
alike  and  with  absolute  equality.     To  facilitate  international  trade  under  fail- 
conditions  to  all  peoples  we  advocate  the  establishment  of  an  international 
board  of  trade,  whose  functions  shall  be : 

(a)  To  furnish  market  places  open  to  all  nations  and  operated  for  service 
alone. 

(ft)  To  report  market  quotations  and  market  information  of  the  markets 
of  the  world. 

3.  An   international   commerce  commission    to   control    international   freight 
rates,  and  to  enforce  its  rules  by  judgments  enforceable  in  the  courts  of  the 
country  of  the  offenders.     There  rmist  be  joint  use  of  coaling  stations  and  of 
canals  over  which  the  international  commerce  commission  would  have  juris- 
diction. 

4.  An  international  institute  of  agriculture.     The  international  institute  of 
agriculture  of  Rome,  Italy,  should  be  brought  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
league  of  nations  and  made  a  part  thereof.     The  importance  of  this  institution 
is  now  well  understood.     As  a  department  of  the  league  of  nations  its  functions 
and  powers  should  be  enlarged,  as  now  recommended  by  its  general  assembly 
and  permanent  committee. 

5.  An  international  labor  board,  to  have  such  functions  and  powers,  con- 
sistent with  the  democratic  purpose  of  the  league  of  nations,  as  the  organized 
labor  forces  of  the  member  nations  may  desire. 

Abolishment  of  secret  diplomacy. — All  treaties  not  made  public  should  be 
abrogated,  and  no  treaty  should  be  considered  binding  until  made  public,  while 
diplomacy  in  the  future  must  be  carried  on  through  frank  and  open  discussion. 

Reparation,  not  revenge. — Unjust  and  revengeful  financial  punishment  must 
not  be  inflicted  upon  the  Central  Powers.  Such  action  would  sow  the  seeds  of 
a  future  war,  inviting  prewar  conditions  which  made  this  war  inevitable.  We 
indorse  the  statement  of  President  Wilson  on  this  point  and  affirm  that  in  de- 
termining the  restoration  to  be  made  by  the  Central  Powers  we  must  avoid  the 
principle  of  revenge,  and  insist  that  only  the  principle  of  reparation  for  wrongs 
done  by  the  Central  Powers  be  enforced.  Except  as  a  means  of  securing  peace 
and  justice  in  the  future,  we  are  opposed  to  economic  boycotts  and  reprisals. 

Armies  and  armaments  must  be  reduced. — Confident  of  the  soundness  of  our 
position  that  this  must  be  made  the  last  war,  we  urge  our  fellow  workers  in  all 
countries  throughout  the  world  to  join  with  us  in  demanding  that  there  be  a 
reduction  of  armies  and  navies,  and  that  all  countries  signing  the  treaty  of 
peace  shall  agree  to  abolish  compulsory  military  training,  and  adopt  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  such  military  training  such  physical,  industrial,  and  agricultural 
training  as  will  promote  the  health  and  efficiency  of  their  peoples.  No  matter 
what  the  offense  of  one  country,  large  or  small,  may  be  in  the  future,  such 
country  must  be  punished  not  by  the  physical  forces  of  other  nations  within 
its  own  territory  but  by  an  economic  boycott  of  all  the  associated  peoples  of  the 
world,  to  continue  while  the  violation  of  international  justice  continues,  and 
to  cease  when  the  offending  country  makes  due  and  adequate  reparation.  We 
advocate  only  such  an  international  police  force,  subject  to  the  control  of  the 
league  of  nations,  as  shall  keep  the  offending  people  within  its  own  territory 
and  protect  others  from  any  injury  through  invasion  of  their  territory,  or 
destruction  of  life  or  property  on  the  high  seas. 

Position  of  German  colonies. — The  colonial  possessions  taken  from  Germany 
should  be  internationalized,  and  free  trade  with  them  established,  or  they 
should  be  governed  by  an  international  parliament  until  they  are  qualified 
for  self-government. 

Supplementing  the  activities  outlined  above  and  in  order  to  advance  under- 
standing and  good  will  among  the  peoples  of  all  nations,  especially  those  en- 
gaged in  the  same  line  of  industry,  we  believe  the  leagxie  of  nations  should 
foster  the  holding  of  international  conferences  of  farmers,  organized  workers, 
manufacturers,  merchants,  bankers,  etc.  Through  frequent  international  con- 
ferences of  this  nature  most  of  the  national  misunderstandings  that  hitherto 
have  been  such  prolific  sources  of  trouble  would  be  things  of  the  past  and  be 
replaced  by  mutual  understanding  and  respect. 


HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS.  403 

The  people  of  all  nations  are  looking  with  prayer  on  their  lips  and  hope  in 
their  hearts  to  the  peace  conference  to  deal  justly  with  our  enemies  and  com- 
plete their  labors,  of  such  vital  importance  to  the  world,  by  providing  for  ilic 
establishment  of  a  league  of  nations  on  a  foundation  economically  and  ethically 
democratic.  Only  as  this  is  accomplished  can  government  of  the  people,  for 
the  people,  by  the  people  spread  o'er  the  earth  and  wars  be  made  impossible. 

We,  therefore,  on  behalf  of  the  farmers  of  America,  after  careful  thought, 
investigation,  and  consideration  have  herein  presented  the  positive  convictions 
of  the  producers  of  America  as  to  the  essentials  of  a  democratic  solution  of 
our  international  problems,  and  submit  them  to  the  peace  conference  and 
the  democratic  people  of  the  world. 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  was  going  to  say  that  the  farmers'  national  confer- 
ence has  not  taken  definite  and  specific  action  upon  this  specific  bill, 
one  reason,  of  course,  being  the  fact  that  it  was  not  introduced  at  the 
time,  but  I  am  going  to  discuss  it,  with  your  permission,  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  general  program,  and  make  certain  suggestions 
in  relation  thereto.  My  first  suggestion — and  if  it  is  not  appropriate, 
you  will  strike  it  from  the  record — is  that  the  Secretary  of  Labor, 
the  Assistant  Secretary  of  Labor,  and  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture 
be  invited  to  appear  before  this  committee  to  discuss  these  questions  in 
relation  to  this  bill.  Taking  up  the  printed  program,  I  will  try  to 
make  clear  the  reasons  for  my  suggestion.  We  suggest  in  section  4, 
under  the  head  of  "  Demobilization,"  that — 

Federal,  State,  and  local  governments  should  also  immediately  plan  construction 
of  public  improvements  in  order  of  urgency,  so  that  when  due  to  industrial  or 
economic  crises  any  large  number  of  men  or  women  are  unemployed  they  may 
find  work  at  fair  rates  on  governmental  undertakings.  Extension  of  railroads, 
reclamation  work,  reforestation  and  land  clearing  and  preparation,  the  develoi>- 
ment  of  highways,  waterways,  and  other  public  works  should  be  similarly 
planned  in  order  of  urgency  to  prevent  the  unemployment  which  would  otherwise 
follow  the  end  of  the  war. 

Then,  under  the  head  of  "Agriculture,"  in  subsection  (c)  we  say — 

The  present  unrestrained  system  of  land  tenure  must  be  terminated.  Vast 
holdings  of  productive  fertile  lands  in  a  single  ownership  is  detrimental  to  all 
legitimate  agricultural  interests.  Tenant  farming  should  be  replaced  by  the 
more  responsible  system  of  cultivation  by  owners.  Taxation  should  be  used  as  a 
remedy  to  force  into  productivity  idle  acres  held  for  speculation. 

Now,  we  feel  that  there  are  certain  features  of  this  bill  and  of  the 
principles  involved  that  we  all  naturally  subscribe  to — that  is,  that  we 
must  do  the  right  thing  by  our  returning  soldiers.  I  have  talked  with 
Mr.  Mondell  upon  the  general  purposes  of  this  bill,  and  he  said  that 
we  must  be  practical.  I  said,  "Mr.  Mondell,  the  Kepublican  and 
Democratic  Parties  have  been  practical  since  the  Civil  War,  and,  as  a 
result  of  their  practicality  " — this  is  the  substance  of  my  words — 
;i  every  rich  man  in  America,  in  the  richest  country  in  the  world  and 
with  the  best  opportunities,  is  shaking  in  his  boots  from  fear  of 
Bolshevism,  which  happens  only  when  the  privileged  interests  gov- 
ern." Now,  would  it  not  be  proper  for  both  parties— and  I  do  not 
belong  to  either — would  it  not  be  proper  for  both  parties  to  question 
whether  they  have  been  so  practical  as  a  result  of  their  joint  control 
of  domestic  affairs  since  the  Civil  War  that  we  are  threatened  with  the 
menace  of  Bolshevism?  It  is  remarkably  strange  that  in  a  country 
with  these  vast  resources,  with  our  875,000,000  acres  of  farms,  we 
should  have  any  problem  whatsoever  in  reabsorbing  in  our  principal 
industries,  manufacturing  and  agriculture,  the  returning  soldiers? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I  am  interested  in  what  you  are  saying,  and  I  want 
to  ask  you  whether  you  think  this  country  is  threatened  with  Bolshe- 


404  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

vism  now  ?    I  am  interested  in  it,  and  I  am  asking  this  for  informa- 
tion. 

Mr.  MARSH.  You  are  asking  me  a  question,  and  I  am  here  as  the 
representative  of  farmers,  but  if  I  may  give  you  a  personal 
opinion — — 

Mr.  JOHNSON  (interposing).  That  is  what  I  want. 

Mr.  MARSH.  My  personal  opinion  is  this,  and  I  have  watched  con- 
ditions pretty  closely  since  I  got  out  of  college — that  the  Bolsheviki 
of  Wall  Street  and  the  land  speculators  have  run  the  Government  so 
long  that  we  are  now  threatened  with  the  inevitable  result  of  their 
conduct  of  it.  I  think  the  Bolsheviki  of  privilege  who  run  things  in 
America  are  one  thousand  times  greater  in  influence  and  a  great  deal 
more  vicious  than  the  Bolsheviki  in  Russia.  I  am  not  alarmed  over 
the  threat  of  Bolshevism,  because  I  think  the  American  people  have 
too  much  good  common  sense.  I  think  that  John  D.  Rockefeller's 
conduct  of  the  Colorado  Coal  &  Iron  Co.  is  a  more  stupid  thing  and 
a  more  vicious  thing  than  what  the  bomb-throwing  anarchists  have 
attempted.  If  you  permit  the  espionage  law  to  remain  on  the  statute 
books 

The  CHAIRMAN  (interposing).  We  have  no  jurisdiction  over  the 
espionage  law. 

Mr.  MARSH.  Don't  you  have  a  vote  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  committee  has  no  jurisdiction  over  that  sub- 
ject, and  we  can  not  go  into  these  collateral  matters. 

Mr.  MARSH.  You  have  gone  into  a  number  of  collateral  matters  this 
morning. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  are  certain  matters  before  this  committee 
and  of  which  we  have  jurisdiction. 

Mr.  MARSH.  As  I  was  saying,  we  would  have  no  difficulty  in  reab- 
sorbing  into  the  manufacturing  industries  and  into  agriculture  the 
men  whom  we  are  going  to  discharge,  or  who  are  being  discharged, 
from  all  branches  of  our  service,  if  we  had  had  a  reasonably  efficient 
and  humane  organization  before  the  war  started  of  both  manufactur- 
ing industries  and  agriculture.  The  war  compelled  us  to  pay  the 
penalty  for  the  past  half  century  of  what  Herbert  Croly  describes  in 
"The  Spirit  of  American  Life"  as  individual  aggrandizement  and 
collective  irresponsibility;  so  that  now  some  23,000  people  own  one- 
fourth  of  the  whole  wealth  of  America,  and  so  that  there  are  indi- 
vidual landholders  who  own  over  1,000,000  acres. 

I  just  want  to  summarize  from  the  Statistical  Abstract  the  proper 
tion  of  the  land  in  farms  by  sections.  It  is  given  here  for  every 
State  in  the  Union,  but  I  want  to  give  it  by  sections,  that  is,  the  pro- 
portion of  land  in  farms  to-day  that  are  improved.  Of  course,  the 
percentage  I  will  read  is  the  improved,  and  the  balance  is  the  unim- 
proved. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Can  you  not  just  have  that  go  into  the  record  by 
referring  to  the  page,  without  reading  it? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Yes;  it  is  on  page  132  of  the  Statistical  Abstract  for 
1917.  I  want  to  call  your  attention  particularly  to  the  fact  that, 
taking  the  country  as  a  whole,  only  about  one-naif  of  the  land  in 
farms  in  11)10  was  improved. 

Xow,  gentlemen,  here  is  the  way  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
described  some  of  this  work  of  reclamation.  This  is  his  last  annual 
report,  the  press  report,  page  115.  He  cites  the  fact  that  there  are  228,- 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  405 

500.000  ucrer-  of  cut-over  lauds,  and  I  quote  liberally:  "In  their  pres- 
ent -tale  the.-.e  228,500,000  of  cut-over  lands  are  a  picture  of  desola- 
tion calculated  to  discourage  the  hardiest  pioneers."'  Then  in  the 
name  of  justice  and  patriotism,  why  do  you  want  to  make  the  sol- 
diers who  have  risked  their  all  go  there  while  the  millionaires  hold 
their  millions  of  acres  of  fertile  and  idle  land  out  of  use  and  get 
richer  and  richer  and  richer? 

I  will  tell  you  a  little  story  I  told  when  Mr.  Lane  was  present.  It 
illustrates  my  position  and  I  think  the  farmer's  position  on  this  pro- 
posal. There  was  a  fellow  in  a  hospital  who  was  going  to  die,  and 
the  chaplain  was  away,  and  the  orderly  served  as  chaplain,  and  the 
orderly  came  to  this  Tommy  and  said,  "  Tommy,  you  have  been  a  sin- 
ner." "  Yes,"  he  said,  "  I  know  it."  "  Tommy,  you  have  been  an  aw- 
ful >inner.  and  you  are  going  to  hell."  "  Well,"  says  Tommy.  "  maybe 
I  am :  it  is  too  bad."  "  Well,'*  says  the  orderly  serving  as  chaplain. 
"  You  ought  to  be  damn  thankful  that  the  good  Lord  has  provided 
some  place  you  can  go  to  when  you  die."  The  soldiers  are  not  going 
to  take  that  attitude  toward  this  proposition,  gentlemen. 

I  have  talked  down  at  Camp  Meade,  and  down  at  the  barracks 
here  to  thousands  and  thousands  of  soldiers  during  the  past  year, 
and  I  have  told  them  about  our  program,  and  I  never  met  a  more 
enthusiastic  crowd,  and  I  have  talked  in  Madison  Square  Garden,  and 
Carnegie  Hall,  and  a  number  of  other  big  halls  throughout  the  coun- 
try, and  I  have  never  had  a  more  enthusiastic  response  than  to  the 
proposition  that  the  soldier  is  entitled  to  something  else  besides  what 
is  left  that  nobody  else  wants. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Under  whose  auspices  did  you  speak  to  the  soldiers? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Under  the  auspices  of  the*Y.  M.  C.  A.,  by  request,  and 
1  will  tell  you  that  it  was  hard  work,  too.  I  did  not  get  home  until 
midnight  after  a  busy  day's  work. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  You  understand  that  Secretary  Lane  refers  to  these 
lands  in  their  present  condition  in  his  picture  of  desolation? 

Mr.  MAKSH.  In  their  present  condition;  yes. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Mr.  Marsh,  you  do  not  mean  to  convey  the  impres- 
sion that  your  statement,  as  you  have  just  made  it  here,  expresses  the 
idea  and  'opinion  of  the  Y.  'M.  C.  A.  as  an  organization  when  you 
state  that  you  spoke  under  their  auspices. 

Mr.  MARSH.  Do  you  find  much  regard  for  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  upon 
the  part  of  the  soldiers? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Yes,  sir;  I  do. 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  do  not,  as  a  whole. 

Mr.  WHITE.  So  do  I. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I  find  a  great  deal. 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  find  it  for  those  who  are  willing  to  go  to  the  bottom 
of  things;  but.  gentlemen,  the  time  for  dealing  with  the  super- 
ficialities of  life  is  past.  You  can  read  about  40  of  the  President's 
speeches  to  that  effect,  and  you  can  read  many  other  things  along  the 
same  line. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Marsh,  you  have  seven  minutes  left  in  which 
to  develop  your  plan. 

Mr.  MARSH.  Well,  of  course.  I  want  to  answer  the  questions  that 
are  asked  as  I  go  along. 

Mr.  VAILE.  I  do  not  want  to  interrupt  Mr.  Marsh's  statement,  but 
when  he  gets  through  I  want  to  ask  him  one  or  two  questions. 


406  HOMES  FOE   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  am  much  obliged,  because  it  is  a  little  hard  for  me 
to  take  up  the  thread  when  I  drop  it.  Mr.  Lane  points  out  also  that 
there  are  80,000,000  acres,  roughly,  of  swamp  lands,  of  which  nearly 
53.000,000  acres  are  permanent  swamp  lands. 

Gentlemen,  to  come  down  to  what  should  be  done,  Australia,  par- 
ticularly New  Zealand,  I  understand,  and  Canada  have  suggested 
buying  lands  for  the  soldiers,  but  they  have  done  this:  They  have 
levied  in  most  of  the  Provinces  of  Australia  and  Canada  an  addi- 
tional tax  on  land  values,  so  that  the  Government  will  not  have  to 
pay  the  enormously  inflated  price  which  you  are  going  to  be  required 
to  pay  when  the  Government  goes  into  the  business  of  buying  lands 
for  soldiers.  That  always  happens.  I  never  knew,  or  at  least  I  do  not 
recall,  a  single  case  where  the  Government  has  been  able  to  buy  lands 
for  anything  like  their  assessed  value  or  for  twice  their  assessed  value 
ordinarily.  Down  in  Australia  they  have  this  law,  that  the  owner 
of  lands  must  set  his  price,  and  he  has  either  got  to  sell  to  the  Gov- 
ernment at  10  per  cent  advance  on  the  price  he  sets  on  his  land  if 
the  Government  wants  to  buy  it  or  he  is  going  to  be  taxed  on  the 
appraisal  or  valuation  he  has  put  on  the  land  himself. 

Now,  that  is  a  pretty  sound  principle,  but  do  we  need  to  buy  a 
lot  of  land.  Is  any  situation  like  this  one  going  to  be  permanent? 
Why  should  the  saviours  of  civilization  be  relegated  to  the  out- 
skirts of  civilization?  Why  should  the  boys  who  put  in  their  time 
digging  trenches  so  that  you  and  I,  we  are  told,  might  be  alive,  why 
should  they  now  go  to  filling  in  swamps  or  improving  cut-over 
lands  ?  It  would  seem  almost  as  though  they  were  entitled  to  a  little 
better  treatment.  Maybe  they  would  like  to  live  in  their  old  homes 
with  their  friends,  and  it  would  seem  as  though  we  ought  to  work 
out  a  scheme  which  will  enable  these  returning  soldiers  and  sailors 
who  want  to  go  on  the  land  to  get  as  good  land  as  there  is  in  the 
United  States.  Way  back  in  1909,  in  his  Winona  speech,  then 
President  Taft  said  that  all  of  the  best  land  in  the  country  had  been 
given  away.  He  was  absolutely  right.  The  question  is  now  raised. 
"  Why  should  the  soldiers  be  called  upon  to  pay  for  this  land,  and 
have  they  got  the  money  to  do  it? "  I  think  it  was  Secretary  Lane, 
although  I  do  not  want  to  do  him  an  injustice,  but  somebody  here 
said  that  they  could  borrow  the  money  from  their  wives'  relatives. 
Gentlemen,  what  would  you  think  if  you  were  a  soldier  and  had 
risked  your  all  and  had  come  back  to  your  Government  and  your 
Government  said,  "  God  bless  you,  boy,  here  is  some  land,  and  you 
can  borrow  the  money  from  your  wife's  relatives  and  make  a  living 
in  that  way." 

Gentlemen,  that  will  do  more  to  make  Bolshevism  than  all  the  an- 
archists, or  socialists,  or  Victor  Bergers,  or  William  D.  Haywards, 
or  Lenines  or  Trotskys  that  the  world  has  ever  produced,  and  the 
soldier  is  thinking  along  those  lines.  We  have  got  to  do  something 
for  them.  Reclamation  is  a  good  thing,  but  they  put  convicts  to  work 
on  reclamation  projects. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Where? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Working  on  the  roads,  in  some  States. 

Mr.  SMITH.  On  Federal  reclamation!!  projects? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Not  on  Federal  reclamation  projects,  but  on  State 
projects.  I  do  not  think  the  soldiers  ought  to  be  asked  to  do  that. 
I  am  saying  again  that  we  have  not  taken  definite  action  on  this. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  407 

but  I  have  talked  with  a  lot  of  our  people  about  it.  I  want  to  be 
perfectly  fair  with  you,  and  they  think  it  is  vastly  more  important 
that  the  soldiers  be  given  a  good  deal  better  chance  than  this  seems 
to  afford.  I  have  gone  into  it  with  different  people,  and  have  heard 
Secretary  Lane  explain  it  at  least  once,  and  have  gone  over  it  with 
others.  Gentlemen,  why  do  you  make  them  pay  interest  for  40 
years?  It  is  provided  that  they  shall  pay  5  per  cent  cash  and  the 
balance  shall  be  paid  in  amortizing  payments  extending  over  a 
period  to  be  fixed  by  the  Secretary  not  to  exceed  40  years.  Paying 
interest  for  40  years  to  the  richest  Government  in  the  world  with 
the  most  multimillionaires  and  with  400,000,000  acres  of  fertile  farm 
lands,  much  of  which  is  held  out  of  cultivation  for  speculation. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Where  is  that  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  There  is  nothing  to  prevent  them  from  paying  it  off 
in  one  year  or  in  two  or  three  years  if  they  want  to  do  so. 

Mr.  MARSH.  The  farmers  make  enough  to  pay  off  this  indebtedness 
in  one  or  two  years,  or  soldiers  who  are  coming  back?  If  the  farmers 
were  that  prosperous,  I  would  not  feel  justified  in  working  for  them. 
1  will  tell  you  that  frankly. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Would  you  give  them  these  farms  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  think  I  would  give  them  the  right  to  use  these  farms 
and  let  the  Government  pay  the  interest  while  they  are  using  them 
until  the  Government  taxes  the  speculative  value  out  of  this  land. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Then,  you  would  never  give  them  title  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Personally,  I  do  not  believe  in  alienating  title  to  land 
the  Government  now  owns  until  you  have  a  system  of  taxation  which 
is  going  to  prevent  speculating  in  land;  and  I  might  cite  that  the 
National  Grange  advocated  also  such  a  system  of  taxation  of  land 
values  as  would  stop  this  curse  of  tenant  farming. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Does  the  Farmers'  Union  organization,  as  such,  agree 
with  you  in  your  plan  which  opposes  alienation  of  land  and  home  own- 
ership ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Does  the  National  Farmers'  Union  oppose  it? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Does  any  one  of  these  farm  organizations  you  repre- 
sent agree  with  you  about  your  plan  ?  I  have  talked  with  you  before 
and  know  your  views  about  that. 

Mr.  MARSH.  We  are  not  facing  an  ordinary  issue.  Personally,  I  do 
believe  absolutely,  and  I  think  most  of  the  farmers  do — I  am  glad  you 
raised  that  question — in  private  ownership  of  land.  I  do  not  believe 
in  the  nationalization  of  land  personally. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  do  not  believe  the  Government  should  pass  title 
at  all? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Here  is  the  question.  That  position  is  regarding  indi- 
vidual homes  or  farms,  or  individual  lots  in  cities;  but,  gentlemen,  we 
are  not  confronting  a  general  economic  or  even  an  ethical  question 
here.  We  are  confronting  the  question  of  the  demobilization  of  a 
large  army  in  the  light  of  our  experience  in  the  past. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  are  getting  clear  away  from  the  subject.  A  mo- 
ment ago  you  said  you  were  not  in  favor  of  alienation ;  that  you  would 
let  the  soldier  use  the  land,  but  vou  were  opposed  to  alienation  of  the 
title.  In  response  to  a  question,  you  said  you  were  opposed  to  aliena- 
tion, and  I  thought  you  were,  because  I  have  talked  with  you  before 
on  this  subject.  Xow,  what  I  am  trying  to  get  at  is  how  many  of  these 


408  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

farmers'  organizations  .you  represent  agree  with  you  on  that  one 
proposition  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  think  most  of  them  would  agree  with  us — frankly, 
not  all  of  them,  but  most  of  them — as  far  as  this  specific  situation  is 
concerned,  but  not  as  regards  individual  farms. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  think  that  the  Farmers'  Union,  the  State  granges, 
the  American  Society  of  Equity,  and  the  National  Gleaner  Federa- 
tion would  approve  of  your  plan  here,  which  provides  that  the  soldier 
shall  be  loaned  the  land  or  leased  the  land  and  become  a  tenant  rather 
than  an  owner;  do  you  think  all  of  them  would  agree  with  that? 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  think  they  would  for  this  situation.  Their  plank 
provides  that  tenant  farming  should  be  replaced  by  a  more  extensive 
system  of  cultivation  by  owners.  We  want  owners,  but  just  to 
illustrate  the  matter,  take  what  has  happened  in  connection  with  the 
Liberty  bonds.  Thousands  of  people  bought  Liberty  bonds  and  made 
a  deposit  of  5  per  cent  or  10  per  cent,  and  they  have  not  made  any 
renewals;  they  could  not.  Xow,  here,  of  course,  you  have  got  to 
guard  the  title,  but  it  is  very  difficult  to  get  around  it.  You  know 
what  happened  with  the  other  land  grants  and  the  story  of  scrip 
paper  issued  on  those  lands  after  the  Civil  War. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  This  is  not  a  scrip  proposition,  Mr.  Marsh.  This  is 
not  a  land-grant  proposition.  This  is  a  proposition  of  individual 
homes  for  these  pople  or  try'iig  to  provide  homes  for  them. 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  think  the  word  "  homes  "  is  too  euphemistic  a  title 
to  apply  to  swamp  lands  such  as  described  by  Mr.  Lane  as  to  most 
of  the  lands  that  are  available.  We  think  that  there  is  imminent 
danger  that  this  land  will  get  into  the  hands  of  speculators,  because 
no  Congress  can  bind  a  succeeding  Congress.  Do  not  forget  that.  We 
can  repeal  the  Constitution,  and  we  can  change  parties  from  time  to 
time  and  can  change  legislation.  This  is  the  question  confronting 
us:  Is  it  fair  to  put  the  solcVers  on  this  least  desirable  land  where 
they  have  got  to  make  the  most  tremendous  effort  to  make  a  living  and 
pay  interest  for  a  long  period  of  time,  or  will  you  gentlemen  do 
what  you  can  overnight,  almost  literally,  enact  a  law  levying  an 
excise  tax  on  the  privilege  of  holding  land,  so  that  you  can  get  land 
that  is  nearer  to  railroads  and  more  productive  and  more  fertile,  and 
give  a  better  opportunity  to  those  soldiers? 

I  want  to  say  one  word  about  Dr.  Atkeson's  statement  here  that  we 
should  have  overproduction.  We  can  not  share  that  fear. 

Mr.  WHITE.  He  withdrew  that. 

Mr.  MARSH.  Did  he- withdraw  it? 

Mr.  WHITE.  He  gave  just  his  personal  opinion. 

Mr.  MARSH.  May  I  give  not  only  my  personal  view,  but  the  view 
of  our  organization,  because  we  discussed  cooperative  marketing  and 
things  of  that  sort.  Overproduction  never  exists  without  under- 
consumption somewhere,  and  it  would  do  more  to  restore  the  peace 
of  the  world  if  the  United  States  Congress  should  make  an  appro- 
priation of  several  hundred  million  dollars  or  several  billion  dollars — 
and  we  can  do  it  and  still  leave  altogether  too  many  multi-millionaires 
and  near  billionaires  in  this  country,  and  ship  food  to  the  starving 
people  of  Europe.  '  That  would  do  more  immediately  than  a  league 
of  nations,  I  believe  personally,  and  I  have  lived  over  there  a  great 
deal,  and  would  do  more  than  a  peace  treaty;  that  is,  if  we  should 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  409 

see  that  these  folks  are  fed.  The  proposition  is  that  we  need  to  raise 
all  we  can  and  we  need  to  export  vast  amounts. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Marsh,  your  time  is  up;  in  fact,  I  have  ex- 
tended it,  taking  into  consideration  the  questions  you  have  been 
asked.  Now,  I  would  like  to  ask  you  a  question.  I  understand  it  is 
your  position  that  there  should  be  no  alienation  of  this  land. 

Mr.  MARSH.  We  feel  that  for  this  specific  land,  not  taking  up  the 
general  question,  that  this  system  would  be  wiser  for  some  time. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  For  the  Government  to  retain  title? 

Mr.  MARSH.  For  the  Government  to  retain  title. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  you  do  not  believe  any  interest  should  be 
charged  the  soldier? 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  think  that  interest  should  be  charged  the  soldier, 
frankly,  only  if  the  soldier  is  able  to  make  as  good  a  living  as  the 
average  man  whose  life  that  soldier  risked  his  life  to  defend. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  understood  you  to  say  a  while  ago  that  the  sol- 
dier should  not  be  charged  interest  for  the  land. 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  think  it  would  be  better  not  to,  but  if  you  do,  then 
charge  it  on  that  condition. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Your  resolution 

Mr.  MARSH  (interposing).  May  I  add  also,  that  promptly  the  Gov- 
ernment should  levy  a  system  of  taxation  upon  land  which  will  pre- 
vent speculation,  and  when  I  said  they  should  not  pay  interest  I 
meant  interest  on  the  money  invested  in  the  land  and  not  in  im- 
provements. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  paragraph  No.  4  of  your  resolutions  under  (c) 
you  state : 

Men  not  experienced  in  fanning,  but  who  wish  to  farm,  should  be  encouraged 
to  do  so  by  the  adoption  of  a  system  similar  to  that  which  has  proven  so  success- 
ful in  the  settlement  of  soldiers  in  the  Province  of  Ontario  through  the  provision 
of  training  tor  agriculture,  with  adequate  payment  during  such  period. 

Mr.  MARSH.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  not  know  that  the  plan  we  have  under 
consideration  is  almost  identical  with  the  Ontario  plan? 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  think  in  some  respects  it  is  similar,  but  I  do  not 
think  it  is  entirely  similar.  I  have  no  objection  to  treating  our  sol- 
diers better  than  the  Canadians  are  treating  theirs. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  amount  of  aid  granted  in  the  Province  of  On- 
tario is  "100  acres,  of  which  10  acres  have  been  cleared,  will  be 
allowed  each  soldier  without  charge,  and  when  necessary  a  loan  not 
to  exceed  $500  will  be  made  to  pay  for  housing,  machinery,  tools,  and 
live  stock.  The  amount  loaned  is  payable  in  20  years  with  6  per  cent 
interest." 

They  pay  interest  there. 

No  payment  of  principal  or  interest  is  required  for  three  years.  This  may 
appear  a  small  amount,  but  is  not  so  when  other  aid  is  taken  into  account.  The 
(^--soldier  is  paid  for  clearing  his  10  acres  and  also  receives  the  assistance  of 
his  fellow  settlers. 

Now,  they  are  evidently  settling  upon  cut-over  lands. 

Mr.  MARSH.  You  have  misunderstood  our  program,  Mr.  Chairman. 
It  refers  to  the  training  given  the  soldiers  and  not  to  the  methods 
of  settlement  on  the  Land.  We  certainly  did  not  advocate  any  6  per 
cent  interest  or  anything  of  that  kind. 


410  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  do  not  approve  the  Ontario  plan  in  whole? 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  think  we  can  improve  on  it  very  much  with  great 
justice  to  the  soldier. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Even  this  bill  improves  on  that  plan,  because  we  give 
them  40  years  instead  of  20  and  charge  them  4  per  cent  instead  of 
6  per  cent,  and  we  will  make  larger  allotments  of  land  to  them. 

Mr.  MARSH.  But  why  should  they  run  in  debt  ? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Mr.  Marsh,  a  man  starting  out  who  has  nothing  either 
has  to  accept  a  gift  or  run  into  debt. 

Mr.  MARSH.  May  I  modify  that  statement  by  saying  why  should 
he  run  in  debt  for  the  land  ? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Do  you  want  the  Government  to  buy  it  and  give  it  to 
him  outright? 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  think  the  Government  might  very  properly  take 
up  these  other  reconstruction  measures  and  pay  the  soldiers  as  they 
come  out  for  specific  work.  And,  gentlemen,  this  or  any  similar 
legislation  will  be  largely  valueless  if  we  keep  up  with  our  frightful 
system  of  tenant  farming,  even  with  the  Government  the  owner, 
and  there  will  be  just  as  much  poverty  and  suffering  on  the  part 
of  the  tenant  as  in  the  Scully  estate  in  Illinois,  unless  you  change 
the  land  system.  That  is  basic. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  Ontario  they  give  the  soldier  a  patent  to  the 
land  in  five  years,  and  it  is  withheld  for  10  years  under  this  bill. 

Mr.  MARSH.  And  he  is  in  debt. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Somebody  has  to  pay  for  it. 

Mr.  MARSH.  Well,  it  is  up  to  you  gentlemen  to  decide  how  grateful 
you  are  to  the  soldiers. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Mr.  Marsh,  in  that  connection,  were  you  present  at 
this  meeting  at  which  this  reconstruction  policy  and  program  was 
adopted  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Yes ;  I  was  in  and  out.  I  was  not  present  every  min- 
ute, because  I  was  attending  to  a  number  of  other  things. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Was  the  benefit  of  the  returning  soldier  discussed  at 
that  meeting? 

Mr.  MARSH.  The  question  of  demobilization — we  realize  that  sound 
economic  conditions  in  the  country  will  mean  that  there  is  no  prob- 
lem of  demobilization  of  the  Army.  Would  Switzerland  or  a  peas- 
ant country  ever  have  a  problem  of  demobilization?  Xot  the  slight- 
est, because  there  the  land  is  not  held  as  here,  where  some  1,400 
people  own  about  one-tenth,  my  recollection  is,  of  all  the  land  in 
America. 

Mr.  VAILE.  You  regarded  the  problem  of  the  returning  soldier 
primarily  from  the  standpoint  of  his  usefulness  in  industry  rather 
than  from  the  view  of  benefit  to  the  soldier,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Absolutely  the  reverse.  The  soldier  and  every  other 
American  citizen  is  entitled  to  equal  opportunity,  but  the  soldier  has 
made  certain  exceptional  sacrifices  and  it  is  certainly  a  slim  reward 
for  that  sacrifice  to  put  him  out  to  do  the  rough  work — and  do  not 
forget  that  the  British  Labor  Party  is  not  standing  for  any  scheme 
like  this. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Mr.  Marsh,  I  notice  in  paragraph  11  that  your  organi- 
zation is  unalterably  opposed  to  the  establishment  of  militarism  in 
America  and  a  system  of  compulsory  military  training,  and  in  para- 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  411 

graph  7  you  advocate  the  repeal  of  the  espionage  law  and  all  similar 
laws.  I  do  not  notice  in  here  anything  at  all  with  regard  to  the 
sacrifices  made  by  the  soldiers,  and  I  would  like  to  ask  if  your  asso- 
ciation was  not.  as  a  matter  of  fact,  more  interested  in  the  con- 
scientious objectors  than  it  was  in  the  soldiers  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  submit  that  to  the  soldiers. 

Mr.  VAILE.  I  would  like  to  have  you  point  out — 

Mr.  MARSH  (continuing).  May  I  add  this,  that  these  delegates  at 
this  convention  understood  mighty  well  that  under  this  economic 
program  of  justice  or  program  of  economic  justice,  that  you  would 
have  this  whole  question  settled,  and  they  were  not  dealing  in  super- 
ficialties. 

Mr.  VAILE.  I  would  like  to  have  you  point  out,  if  you  can,  any  pro- 
grame  or  sentence  in  this  program  which  refers  to  the  sacrifices 
made  by  the  soldiers  or  which  speaks  of  benefits  to  be  conferred 
upon  the  soldiers. 

Mr.  MARSH.  We  would  confer  the  benefits  upon  even-body  that 
they  are  entitled  to.  and  the  greatest  benefit  to  the  soldier  would  be 
for  Congress  to  stop  the  reign  of  privilege  in  America.  We  put  in 
different  words,  but  that  is  the  program. 

Mr.  SXELL.  Mr.  Marsh,  how  many  real  farmers  attended  this  con- 
ference, and  how  many  of  them  were  paid  representatives  of  some 
organizations  similar  to  yourself? 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  do  not  know;  but  I  am  sure  you  are  not  going  to 
question  the  right  of  the  farmers  to  select  men  and  pay  them  to  at- 
tend to  the  farmers'  business. 

Mr.  SXELL.  That  was  not  my  question. 

Mr.  MARSH.  Do  you  question  the  right  of  the  packers  to  select 
counsel  to  come  before  you,  the  most  highly  paid  counsel  in  America . 
and  I  am  not  that,  bv  the  way,  because  I  am  getting  a  salary  of 
$3.600  a  year. 

Mr.  SXELL.  My  object  wras  to  find  out  how  many  were  men  similar 
to  yourself,  paid  representatives,  who  wrere  going  around  organizing 
societies,  or  how  many  were  really  farmers  who  owned  farms. 

Mr.  MARSH.  Now,  'let  me  go  down  the  list.  Herbert  Baker,  of 
Michigan,  is  a  farmer. 

Mr.  SNELL.  I  mean  what  proportion  of  them. 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  am  going  to  go  into  it  in  detail.  C.  H.  Gustafson. 
the  president  of  the  Nebraska  Farmers'  Union,  has  his  own  farm 
and  has  had  two  boys  in  the  service,  and  he  is  the  head  of  a  farmers' 
business  concern  doing  about  $100,000,000  a  year  of  cooperative  busi- 
ness. Now,  they  said,  I  presume:  "Brother  Gustafson,  you  will 
do  us  a  whole  lot  more  good  if  you  will  come  off  the  farm  and  will 
organize  this  cooperative  business  so  we  can  buck  the  big  combi- 
nations of  capital."  It  is  not  a  question  of  farming.  My  heavens, 
the  Department  of  Agriculture  tells  the  farmer  how  to  raise  stuff 
and  he  raises  the  stun,  and  the  more  he  raises  the  poorer  he  some- 
times gets.  It  is  a  question  of  distribution. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  now  taken  up  an  hour  and 
26  minutes  listening  to  this  gentleman.  I  think  it  is  all  the  time 
one  man  is  entitled.  I  want  to  make  this  statement  to  go  into  the 
record. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  ask  one  question 
before  the  witness  gets  through. 


412  HOMES   FOE   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  JOHN sox.  Let  me  finish  this  statement  first,  please.  The  sol- 
diers are  waiting  for  us  to  do  something  for  them,  and  we  are 
anxious  to  do  something  for  them.  This  committee  has  met  here  for 
the  purpose  of  hearing  men  who  would  throw  some  light  on  the 
subject  we  are  to  discuss,  and  the  law  which  we  hope  to  enact.  I 
can  see  nothing  gained  from  such  statements  as  have  gone  into  this 
record,  and  can  see  no  light  thrown  on  this  matter  at  all.  It  seems 
to  be  a  statement  from  some  who  are  prone  to  agitate.  It  does  not 
make  any  difference  what  legislation  is  enacted  here,  it  is  not  going 
to  suit  certain  people.  Jesus  Christ,  Himself,  could  not  come  here 
and  satisfy  some  of  them,  and  I  take  it  we  are  to  go  into  this  matter 
and  hear  men  who  will  throw  light  on  it  and  enable  us  to  enact 
legislation  which  will  be  the  best  we  can  enact,  and  that  is  all  we 
can  do. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Will  you  make  a  motion  to  that  effect? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Yes;  I  will. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Johnson,  of  course,  as  long  as  members  de- 
sire to  interrogate  the  witness — 

Mr.  JOHNSON  (interposing).  I  took  it  for  granted  that  they  were 
all  through. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  not  within  the  province  or  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  chairman  to  prohibit  them  from  doing  so.  Of  course,  this  is 
always  subject  to  a  motion. 

Mr.  GANDY.  I  would  like  to  ask  the  witness  a  question. 

Mr.  MARSH.  May  I  speak  on  a  question  of  personal  privilege  before 
this  hearing  is  closed? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No;  Mr.  Gandy  first  desires  to  ask  you  a  question. 

Mr.  GANDY.  I  want  to  ask  you  a  question,  Mr.  Marsh.  In  dealing 
with  these  cut-over  lands  that  you  referred  to,  in  your  opinion  would 
it  make  any  difference  whether  the  land  is  to  be  reclaimed  and  ready- 
made  homes  or  ready-made  farms  made  out  of  it  before  the  soldier 
buys  it? 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  think  it  would.  Mr.  Gandy,  vou  know,  as  well  as 
1  do- 
Mr.  GANDY  (interposing).  Let  me  follow  that  up  by  .saying  that 
it  is  the  intention  of  this  legislation  to  provide  two  things:  First, 
work  for  the  soldier  if  he  wants  to  work  at  that  kind  of  labor,  and. 
second,  that  the  farms  shall  be  ready-made  and  the  improvements 
made,  and  that  they  shall  not  constitute  a  desolate  waste  which  the 
Secretary  describes  them  as  being  now,  but  shall  be  made  into  a 
developed,  growing  community  with  modern  conveniences,  before  the 
soldier  is  asked  to  buy  them. 

Mr.  MARSH.  But  you  will  admit  that  if  these  lands  were  desirable 
they  would  have  been  snapped  up  long  ago.  You  will  admit  that, 
That  is  obvious  on  the  face  of  it.  Second,  you  will  admit  that  the 
soldier  may  like  something  different.  Now,'  Mr.  Chairman.  I  want 
to  speak  on  the  question  of  personal  privilege.  Mr.  Johnson  says  1 
have  not  said  anything,  if  I  understood  him,  that  will  be  helpful. 

If  I  do  not  suggest  a  better  chance  for  the  soldier,  a  lower  rate  of 
interest,  and  a  better  opportunity  to  be  relieved  of  this  enormous 
indebtedness  of  the  Government,  1  will  be  willing  to  debate  the  ques- 
tion with  Mr.  Johnson  before  any  group  of  soldiers  in  the  United 
States,  and  I  will  send  out  a  statement  to  that  effect  to  every  farm 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  413 

paper  in  the  United  States  or  to  every  considerable  farm  paper  in  the 
United  States. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  further  questions  that  members  of 
the  committee  desire  to  ask  ? 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question :  Do  you  believe  that 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  should  give  this  land  to  the 
soldiers  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  As  to  the  question  of  whether  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  should  give  this  land  to  the  soldiers,  I  would  say  not 
the  title,  but  the  chance  to  use  the  land  as  long  as  the  soldier  wanted 
to  use  it.  That  is  a  very  different  thing. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Would  you  give  it  to  him  for  nothing  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  For  nothing,  or  I  would  not  charge  him  any  interest 
until,  I  repeat,  he  has  made — not  as  much  as  a  Congressman — but  as 
much  as  the  average  American  citizen  who  has  made  anything  like  a 
similar  sacrifice  for  the  country. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Under  your  section  5,  paragraph  (/•).  you  say: 

Teiuint  farming  should  be  replaced  by  the  more  responsible  system  of  culti- 
vation by  owners. 

Mr.  MARSH.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Marsh  a  few  questions.  Do 
you  remember  the  bill  that  was  introduced  and  reported  at  the  last 
Congress  providing  homesteads  for  soldiers?  This  bill  was  intro- 
duced by  Mr.  Taylor  of  Colorado. 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  read  it,  but  do  not  remember  the  details. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Have  you  read  the  bills  introduced  by  the  various 
Members  of  Congress  and  myself  that  are  now  pending  before  this 
committee  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  No,  sir;  I  have  read  the  bill  that  the  Department  of 
Labor  worked  on. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  would  like  for  you  to  confine  your  answers  to  what 
I  ask  you,  because  in  that  way  we  will  save  time.  You  do  not  know 
the  purpose  of  those  bills  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  As  indicated  by  the  bills  we  have  before  us? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Except  this  one.    I  am  speaking  about  this  bill. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then  you  have  read  the  Mondell  bill? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Yes,  sir;  I  have  read  the  Mondell  bill. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Are  you  in  favor  of  providing  homes  for  the  returning 
soldiers? 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  am  m  favor  of  providing  homes  for  the  returning 
soldiers,  but  in  a  different  method  from  those  which  have  been 
adopted  in  the  past  in  giving  homesteads  to  other  people,  because 
that  system  has  not  worked  well.  I  do  not  believe  that  it  is  the  part 
of  wisdom  to  duplicate  that  mistake. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  are  not  familiar  with  the  workings  of  the  home- 
stead law  generally,  whether  to  soldiers  or  to  other  individuals  in 
the  Western  States",  are  you  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then  I  would  like  for  you  to  confine  your  answers  to 
my  questions,  because  there  is  quite  a  difference  in  the  working  of 
the  homestead  law  now.  You  are  in  favor  of  the  Government  pro- 
viding homes,  or  individual  homes,  for  the  returning  soldier  whereby 
he  can  make  a  living  for  himself  and  family. 


414  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  MARSH.  Assuming,  of  course,  that  he  wants  to  go. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes;  if  he  is  willing  to  go  and  wants  a  home.  If  he 
wants  to  make  a  home  on  a  farm,  irrespective  of  its  size,  so  as  to 
make  a  living  for  himself  and  family,  you  are  in  favor  of  the  Gov- 
ernment providing  a  method  or  means  by  which  he  can  obtain  such 
a  home? 

Mr.  MARSH.  And  be  secure  in  his  tenure. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Just  answer  my  question,  please. 

Mr.  MARSH.  I  am  not  going  to  answer  half  a  question  or  answer  a 
question  only  half  way.  I  say  I  am  in  favor  of  it  provided  the  Gov- 
ernment adopts  a  method  which  will  protect  that  soldier,  as  our 
program  says,  in  the  ownership  of  his  home,  provided  he  uses  it. 
I  know  of  no  other  title  except  use. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  are  in  favor  of  the  Government  providing  the 
home  and  that  the  soldier  shall  own  his  home  in  fee,  or  that  he 
shall  be  vested  with  his  title  in  fee? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Does  it  make  any  difference — 

Mr.  MARSH  (interposing).  Pardon  me — in  answer  to  your  last 
question,  I  think  that  if  the  soldier  could  be  absolutely  protected  in 
his  tenure  he  should  have  the  fee,  but  I  question  whether  the  fee 
should  be  given  him  under  such  a  system  as  that  proposed  in  this 
bill. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  want  to  ask  this  witness  some  questions,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, if  I  can  have  the  attention  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  RAKER.  This  man  has  come  here  to  help  us,  and  I  want  to  find 
out  whether  he  knows  anything  about  it.  Are  you  in  favor  of  the 
soldier  having  his  title  in  fee  after  four  or  five  years,  or  leaving  it 
rather  indefinite — 

Mr.  MARSH  (interposing).  I  think  it  would  be  better  for  the  Gov- 
ernment to  hold  the  title  to  the  land  until  the  soldier  has  been  able  to 
pay  off  at  least  most  of  his  indebtedness. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then  you  answer  that  you  are  in  favor  of  the  Govern- 
ment providing  homes  for  the  soldiers.  Now,  does  it  make  any 
difference  where  they  should  locate;  that  is,  in  what  State  or  in 
what  location  in  a  given  State? 

Mr.  MARSH.  You  have  raised  there  a  question  of  administration. 
Suppose  these  reclamation  projects — 

Mr.  RAKER  (interposing).  I  am  not  talking  about  reclamation  proj- 
ects. I  have  not  been  asking  about  reclamation  projects,  but  I  have 
asked  you  a  plain,  simple  question  about  providing  homes  for  these 
soldiers.  Now,  would  it  make  any  difference,  in  providing  a  home, 
where  that  home  should  be  located,  or  in  what  State  it  should  be 
located? 

Mr.  MARSH.  On  general  principles;  no,  sir.  He  should  have  free- 
dom of  selection. 

Mr.  RAKER.  If  you  could  provide  that  kind  of  a  home  for  him  on 
a  reclamation  project,  and  he  voluntarily  wants  it  and  it  can  be  done 
as  reasonably  as  at  any  other  place,  are  you  for  providing  such  a 
home  for  him,  or  are  you  against  it  because  it  is  a  reclamation 
home  for  him,  or  are  you  against  it  because  it  is  a  reclamation  project? 

Mr.  MARSH.  If  any  soldier  wants  a  home  on  a  reclamation  project. 
I  think  he  is  entitled  to  it. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  415 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  it  would  be  the  same  thing  with  reference  to  pro- 
viding the  home  wherever  he  desires  it,  whether  on  reclaimed  swamp 
land — 

Mr.  MARSH  (interposing) .Yes,  sir;  if  it  is  equally  good  and  affords 
him  a  fair  opportunity. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  the  same  thing  would  apply  whether  it  was  cut- 
over  land  or  not  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  So  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  if  you  could  provide 
homes  at  a  reasonable  cost  where  the  soldiers  want  them,  whether 
they  are  on  swamp  lands,  reclaimed  lands,  or  cutover  lands,  you  are 
perfectly  willing  for  the  soldiers  to  have  such  homes  ? 

Mr.  MARSH.  If  the  soldier  wants  it,  but  I  will  add  this:  That  if 
the  soldier  wants  that  only  because  he  can  not  get  anything  else  I 
think  that  would  be  a  bad  thing  for  the  soldier. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Your  theory  is  that  the  Government  should  take  a 
piece  of  privately  owned  land  and  buy  it  and  divide  it  up  into  homes 
for  soldiers? 

Mr.  MARSH.  My  theory  is  much  more  fundamental  than  that. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  J.  N.  COX,  REPRESENTING  THE  GOVERNOR 
OF  TENNESSEE. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Cox,  representing  the  governor  of  Tennessee, 
desires  to  make  a  brief  statement. 

Mr.  Cox.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  am 
here  as  the  personal  representative  of  the  governor  of  Tennessee  on 
account  of  the  fact  that  he  is  unable  to  appear  at  this  time.  In  Ten- 
nessee, so  far  as  I  know,  we  are  very  much  in  favor  of  this  bill.  Our 
legislature  at  its  last  session  passed  a  bill  that  was  suggested  by 
Secretary  Lane  that  will  enable  us  to  take  action  on  this  matter  in 
that  State.  We  are  in  favor  of  this  bill,  but,  as  was  suggested  the 
other  day  by  a  gentleman  who  preceded  me,  we  would  like  to  sug- 
gest an  amendment  as  to  the  loan  value  of  the  improvements  and  the 
live  stock  and  equipment.  I  believe  that  you  provide  in  the  bill  that 
you  will  loan  as  much  as  75  per  cent  on  the  improvements  and  60 
per  cent  on  the  live  stock  and  equipment.  Believing  that  it  would  be 
hard  for  the  soldier  to  secure  that  amount  of  cash,  or  even  to  work 
it  out,  we  believe  that  it  would  be  better  to  make  that  loan  value  90 
per  cent  on  the  improvements  and  80  per  cent  on  the  live  stock  and 
equipment.  That  would  require  the  soldier  to  procure  only  about 
$500,  which  a  great  many  of  them  can  do,  and  it  is  believed  that  that 
would  be  better  for  them  and  more  in  keeping  with  their  desires. 

Xow,  I  know  that  you  gentlemen  are  going  through  a  siege  here 
this  morning,  and  I  will  not  take  up  any  more  of  your  time,  except 
to  say  that  we  are  very  much  in  accord  w:ith  this  work  and  hope  that 
the  bill  will  go  through,  and  to  assure  you  that  Tennessee  stands  ready 
to  do  her  part  when  the  times  comes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Has  this  plan  the  general  approval  of  the  people 
of  your  State? 

Mr.  Cox.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  the  attitude  of  the  soldiers  toward  it  I 

133319—19 27 


416  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  have  heard  a  great  many  of  them  express  themselves, 
and  they  are  very  much  in  favor  of  it. 

Mr.  GANDY.  Do  you  think  that  there  ought  to  be  embodied  with 
the  community  idea  some  provision  for  individual  locations  ? 

Mr.  Cox.  I  doubt  it.  I  have  heard  that  discussed,  and  I  believe 
that  this  community  plan  is  the  better  one,  because  of  the  fact  that 
isolated  farms  without  improvements  around  them,  as  these  com- 
munity farms  would  have,  would  not  be  as  satisfactory  to  the  soldiers 
as  the  community  plan  with  the  road  building  and  things  of  that 
kind  undertaken  by  the  Government. 

[Telegram.] 
J.  N.  Cox. 

Care  of  Cordcll  Hull,  1L  C.,  Waxliiuftton.  D.  C.: 

Big  convention  here  indorse  soldier  settlement  plan  calling  for  passage  of  bill 
after  speech  by  York. 

A.  H.  ROBERTS,  Governor. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  thank  you  very  much  for  your  statement. 

TUESDAY,  JUNE  10,  1919. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Springer,  representing  the  governor  of  New 
Mexico,  will  now  be  heard. 

Mr.  HERNANDEZ.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  wish  to  introduce  Mr.  Charles 
Springer,  of  Coif  ax  County,  N.  Mex.  He  is  the  chairman  of  the  road 
board  of  that  State,  and  is  a  very  active  citizen  of  our  State.  He  will 
give  you  his  views  in  regard  to  the  legislation  that  the  Legislature  of 
New  Mexico  has  already  enacted. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  CHARLES  SPRINGER,  REPRESENTING  THE 
GOVERNOR  OF  NEW  MEXICO. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  the 
governor  of  our  State  wired  me  requesting  me  to  appear  before  this 
committee  chiefly,  as  I  understand  it,  to  urge  the  necessity  of  a  cer- 
tain amendment  which  has  been  proposed  by  Mr.  Hernandez,  or  a 
section  of  a  bill  which  has  been  introduced  by  him.  The  reason  for 
that  is  that  our  legislature  passed  a  law  creating  a  soldiers'  settlement 
board,  giving  that  board  certain  funds  to  be  derived  from  the  sale  and 
rental  of  lands  heretofore  granted  to  New  Mexico  by  Congress, 
amounting  to  300.000  acres.  The  act  of  Congress,  called  the  enabling 
act  of  our  State,  provides  that  no  lands  heretofore  granted  by  Congress 
or  the  proceeds  thereof  may  be  used  for  any  other  purposes  than  the 
purposes  stated  in  the  acts  themselves  granting  the  lands,  and  the 
purpose  of  this  amendment  is  to  permit  the  lands  and  the  proceeds  to 
be  used  for  soldier-settlement  projects  and  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the 
soldier  settlement  board.  Two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  acres  of 
those  lands  were  granted  for  water  reservoirs  for  irrigation,  or  that 
is  the  wording  of  the  grant. 

We  have  sold  some  of  those  lands  and  the  proceeds  are  now  in- 
vested in  bonds  or  in  permanent  funds,  and  the  rentals  of  those  lands 
have  been  accumulating  heretofore  in  the  water-reservoirs-for-irriga- 
tion  fund.  It  has  been  appropriated  from  time  to  time  by  the  leo-is- 
lature  for  various  purposes,  there  being  no  apparent  need  of  using 
that  money  by  the  State  to  build  reserviors.  There  was  another 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  417 

grant  of  100,000  acres  of  land  for  the  improvement  of  the  Rio 
Grande,  and  there  appears  to  be  no  use  for  that  land,  or  of  the  money 
for  this  purpose  by  the  State,  which  would  interfere  with  the  use  of 
it  by  the  soldier  settlement  board.  We  can  not  proceed  now  with 
the  soldier  settlement  board  unless  Congress  will  remove  that  re- 
striction from  the  former  act  as  to  the  use  of  that  fund. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  did  you  say  it  was  devoted  to  under  the 
former  act? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  It  says  for  water  reservoirs  for  irrigation  purposes. 
There  is  nothing  definite,  but  that  is  the  wording  of  the  act.  We 
still  have  remaining  more  than  ample  lands  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Have  you  presented  that  proposition  to  the  Interior 
Department,  and  does  it  meet  with  their  approval  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  No,  sir;  it  has  not  been  to  my  knowledge.  I  do  not 
know  that  it  has  been  presented  there. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Would  it  not  be  a  good  idea  for  you  to  take  it  up 
with  the  Interior  Department,  inasmuch  as  the  Interior  Depart- 
ment has  jurisdiction  over  the  public  domain  and  over  the  dispo- 
sition of  public  lands? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  If  you  will  permit  me,  this  is  not  a  question  of  the 
disposition  of  the  public  domain.  It  is  really  a  question  of  whether 
that  sovereign  State  shall  have  the  right  to  dispose  of  its  own  prop- 
erty for  the  best  interests  of  its  people. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  As  I  understand  it,  this  is  something  derived  from 
the  disposition  of  lands  that  were  given  to  the  State  by  the  Federal 
Government  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  When  the  Government  gives  land  to  a  State,  whether 
for  a  State  university,  a  normal  school,  or  any  other  congressional 
purpose,  or  for  an  Indian  school,  as  they  did  in  Colorado,  when  you 
seek  to  divert  that  money  to  some  other  purpose,  you  generally  have 
to  come  back  to  the  Federal  Government  and  get  their  permission. 
If  it  came  out  of  the  public  domain  originally,  the  Interior  Depart- 
ment still  .exercises  a  sort  of  supervisory  or  advisory  control  over 
the  matter,  and  I  was  wondering  whether,  or  not,  the  Interior  De- 
partment would  be  in  accord  with  your  proposition  to  change  the 
manner  of  the  utilization  of  the  proceeds  arising  from  lands  on  the 
public  domain.  I  think  that  possibly  it  would  facilitate  your  proposi- 
tion to  have  this  amendment  put  on  here  if  the  Interior  Department 
heartily  approved  it  and  recommended  it.  There  would  be  some 
question  raised,  probably,  when  it  came  up  on  the  floor  of  the  House, 
and  I  think  you  would  expedite  the  matter  a  good  deal  by  having  it 
submitted  to  the  Interior  Department.  Mr.  Hernandez,  of  course, 
realizes  fully  the  practice  of  the  committee  of  referring  important 
matters  back  to  the  departments  that  they  originally  came  from. 

Mr.  HERNANDEZ.  In  further  answer  to' that,  I  will  say  that  we  did 
not  have  any  doubt  and  the  legislature  did  not  have  any  doubt  but 
what  these  funds  could  be  used  in  connection  with  these  projects, 
because  they  are  germane  to  this  legislation.  The  land  board,  or  the 
soldier  settlement  board,  asked  the  attorney  general  of  the  State  for 
an  opinion  on  the  subject,  and  he  suggested  that  we  should  ask  that 
this  amendment  be  made  before  we  used  this  fund  for  this  purpose, 
so  there  would  be  no  doubt  about  it.  These  are  State  lands  that  we 
are  talking  about,  and  they  have  already  been  granted  to  the  State. 


418  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  But  they  were  granted  to  the  State  for  some  special 
purpose. 

Mr.  HERNANDEZ.  Yes.  That  restriction  or  safeguard  was  thrown 
around  the  legislature  at  the  time  the  grant  was  made.  These  are 
State  lands  that  we  want  to  use  in  order  to  carry  out  the  purposes 
of  our  soldier  settlement  law. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  There  is  no  question  but  what  it  is  a  good  purpose, 
and  I  was  making  a  suggestion  here  that  would  help  you  in  bringing 
it  about,  because,  otherwise,  somebody  on  the  floor  of  the  House 
would  ask  what  you  were  trying  to  do. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  might  get  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  for 
the  proposed  amendment. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  These  settlement  projects  in  New  Mexico,  or  most 
of  them,  will  have  to  go  on  reclamation  projects. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  that  we  will  probably  have  no  difficulty 
with  the  department  in  that  matter. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Then,  there  was  another  matter  that  the  governor 
wanted  me  to  bring  before  the  committee,  and  that  was  the  ques- 
tion of  giving  the  State  board  some  further  duty  in  the  way  of  co- 
operation than  has  been  proposed  in  the  present  bill — either  in  the 
Mondell  bill,  the  Ferris  bill,  or  the  Hernandez  bill.  I  mean  by  that 
as  to  the  actual  management  of  the  projects  during  the  period  of 
settlement.  This  provides  for  some  cooperation  or  some  authority 
on  the  part  of  the  State  board  under  certain  circumstances  after  the 
settlement,  as  I  understand,  and  in  the  fixing  of  the  price. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  After  the  payment  of  25  per  cent — 

Mr.  SPRINGER  (interposing).  Did  not  one  of  the  bills  introduced 
at  the  last  session  provide  that  if  the  State  should  furnish  the  land 
or  the  title  to  the  land  that  it  or  its  board  might  have  the  manage- 
ment and  settlement  of  the  project? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  may  have  been  such  a  bill. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Are  the  people  of  Colorado  pretty  conversant  with 
the  terms  of  this  so-called  soldiers'  settlement  plan  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  It  has  been  played  up  in  the  papers  a  good  deal  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  sir ;  to  some  extent. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  As  you  understand  it,  is  the  proposition  pretty  uni- 
versally favored  in  New  Mexico? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  They  are  in  favor  of  the  general  principle,  but  the 
people  there  are  rather  in  favor  of  the  State  having  a  little  bit  more 
to  do  with  the  management  of  it. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  mean  with  the  administration  of  it  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Is  it  their  opinion  that  this  plan  will  render  great  relief 
or  help  to  the  soldiers  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Do  you  know  of  any  organizations  or  societies  of 
farmers  and  laborers,  or  of  any  sort  of  organizations  in  the  State, 
that  are  actively  against  this  plan? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  No.  sir.  There  is  only  this  one  thing,  and  that  is 
the  question  of  whether  the  community  plan,  as  suggested  and  as  it 
has  lieen  discussed,  will  be  successful.  That  is  not  in  the  way  of  dis- 
approval, but  they  simply  wonder  whether  a  number  of  soldiers 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  419 

going  out  upon  a  reclamation  project,  we  will  say,  such  as  it  would 
have  to  be  in  New  Mexico,  without  any  experienced  farmers  among 
them,  and  without  any  older  men.  and  without  the  usual  speculator, 
or  without  the  usual  capitalist  who  is  interested  in  boosting  the 
community,  would  be  successful.  They  wonder  how  it  will  turn  out ; 
that  is  all.  They  are  in  favor  of  the  general  plan. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Do  they  think  that  Federal  supervision  of  it  will  not 
be  sufficient? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  It  is  not  altogether  that,  but  they  think  it  is  an  un- 
natural way  to  promote  a  community. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  In  the  arid  regions  where  you  would  have  to  impound 
water  and  have  irrigation  it  would  have  to  be  in  a  measure  that  way. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  sir:  as  to  the  management  of  it,  but  not  as  to 
the  people  who  would  come  in  there  and  settle.  This  seems  to  be 
confined  to  soldiers. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  would  not  advocate  throwing  this  open  to  every- 
body? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  would  certainly  advocate  that  a  portion  of  every 
one  of  these  projects  should  be  devoted  -to  other  settlers  or  that  the 
land  should  be  sold  to  others  than  soldiers,  so  that  it  would  not  be 
entirely  a  community  of  soldiers. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Do  you  think  the  Government,  with  the  great  load  the 
Treasury  is  carrying  on  account  of  the  conduct  of  the  war.  should  at 
this  time  tackle  the  job  of  offering  this  relief  not  only  to  soldiers  but 
to  anybody  else  who  wanted  it? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  It  would  not  be  a  relief  for  them,  but  they  would  pay 
what  it  Avas  worth. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Not  now,  but  40  years  from  now. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  It  might  be  sold  on  a  different  basis  to  those  who 
might  be  able  to  go  in  there  and  who  might  want  to  go  in  there  and 
purchase  farms. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Your  thought  would  be,  then,  that  if  you  interspersed 
and  intermingled  practical  farmers  with  the  soldiers  it  might  be  a 
good  plan? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Without  offering  to  nonsettlers  the  same  relief,  of 
course  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  It  would  be  giving  no  benefit  to  the  nonsoldier.  He 
would  provide  his  own  money  and  bring  in  his  experience  to  help  the 
community. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  thought  you  intimated  that  you  would  give  the  same 
relief  to  the  nonsoldier  that  vou  would  give  to  the  soldier,  an  1  if  you 
did  that  the  soldier  phase  of  it  might  as  well  be  eliminated  altogether. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  think  it  would  be  in  the  interest  of  the  soldier. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Outside  of  possibly  extending  an  opportunity  for 
employment  to  some  soldiers,  do  you  think  that  this  provides  a  great 
measure  of  relief  to  the  soldier? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  It  would  lie  a  very  fine  thing  for  the  soldiers  if  you 
could  induce  them  to  go  on  farms.  *  In  that  way  many  of  them  would 
go  on  farms  who  would  not  do  so  otherwise. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  What  measure  of  relief  would  it  afford  the  soldier? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Well,  as  I  understand  it.  a  considerable  portion  of 
the  capital  necessary  for  him  to  establish  himself  upon  ;i  farm  is 
furnished  him. 


420  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  know  how  much  it  will  be  necessary  for 
him  to  furnish  himself  under  this  bill? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  A  small  amount. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  How  much  would  the  initial  payment  amount  to? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  That  would  depend  altogether  on  the  circumstances, 
the  locality,  and  the  price  of  the  land. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  It  is  5  per  cent,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  understood  you  to  ask  him  what  was  the  total 
amount  of  money. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  believe  that  it  would  be  a  good  principle 
for  the  Government  to  extend  this  relief  to  anybody,  regardless  of 
whether  he  served  in  the  Army  or  not  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  think  the  Government  should  do 
that  at  all. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Then  what  do  you  mean  by  saying  that  you  would 
open  it  to  all  of  the  people  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  A  certain  portion  of  the  land  might  be  sold  at  what 
it  is  worth  to  outsiders,  so  that  the  community,  instead  of  being 
composed  of  one  class  of  persons,  might  be  a  more  or  less  mixed  com- 
munity and  have  in  it  a  number  of  good,  experienced  farmers,  cattle- 
men, etc. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  How  long  do  you  think  it  would  take  a  soldier  with- 
out money  to  accumulate  enough  money  to  make  the  initial  pay- 
ment? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  understand  that  he  would  be  accumulating  that 
money  during  the  time  of  the  improvement  of  the  land — that  is. 
he  would  be  given  a  job. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  He  would  be  given  employment  to  begin  with,  but 
he  could  not  acquire  the  land  until  he  had  made  the  initial  pay- 
ment. Now,  how  long  do  you  think  it  would  be  necessary  for  the 
soldier  to  toil  on  the  land  before  he  would  acquire  enough  money  to 
make  the  initial  payment? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  During  the  time  of  the  development  of  the  project. 
That  ought  to  be  sufficient  time  if  the  project  requires  five  years  for 
the  development.  He  could  save  a  portion  of  his  wages  during  that 
time  and  have  it  set  aside  for  the  purpose  of  making  the  initial 
payment. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  do  you  think  of  these  several  plans  that  are 
being  talked  of  here  of  allowing  the  soldier  to  select  his  farm  wher- 
ever he  desires  to  select  it  and  make  him  a  loan  to  buy  it  ?  Do  you 
think  that  is  a  good  plan  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  That  would  require  a  great  deal  of  money  if  he 
selected  land  where  the  price  was  two  or  three  hundred  dollars  per 
acre. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  If  you  had  a  minimum  price  that  should  be  paid  for 
it,  it  would  be  subject  to  the  same  criticism  that  this  would  be. 

Mr.  SMITH.  If  he  is  without  any  capital  to  go  on  except  what  the 
Government  lends  him,  it  is  likely  that  he  would  be  able  to  pay  in- 
terest on  the  purchase  price  and  make  a  success  on  his  venture. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  If  he  is  a  good  farmer,  he  can  pay  for  it. 

Mr.  SMITH.  But  it  would  not  afford  him  the  same  opportunity  if 
he  went  on  a  project  that  was  worth  twice  as  much  as  it  cost  per 
acre? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  421 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  How  many  soldiers  did  New  Mexico  send  to  the 
war,  under  the  draft  and  otherwise  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Between  fourteen  and  fifteen  thousand. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  percentage  of  them  have  been  demobilized  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  should  say  that  perhaps  1,500  of  them  are  yet  in 
the  Army. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  So  that  the  great  bulk  of  them  have  been  demobilized  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  percentage  of  them,  in  your  opinion,  would 
avail  themselves  of  some  plan  like  this  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Possibly  one-third  of  them. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  think  that  one-third  of  them  would  avail  them- 
selves of  a  plan  like  this  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Is  that  based  upon  your  knowledge  of  any  concerted 
action  of  the  soldiers,  or  upon  resolutions  adopted  by  them? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  It  is  just  my  opinion  after  talking  with  them. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  From  your  knowledge  of  the  conditions  in  your  State, 
it  is  your  opinion  that  as  many  as  one-third  of  the  returning  soldiers 
would  avail  themselves  of  an  opportunity  like  this  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  New  projects  would  have  to  be  turned  out  and 
advertised,  and  they  would  have  to  be  worked  up.  Of  course,  they 
would  not  rush  in  voluntarily  to  do  this  without  some  propaganda, 
but  I  think  that  with  propaganda  a  large  number  of  young  men 
would  engage  in  this  work. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Is  there  a  scarcity  of  labor  in  New  Mexico  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  wages  are  very  high? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  That  would,  of  course,  make  these  individual  farms 
less  attractive  to  these  people. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Many  a  man  would  go  into  this  plan  who  would 
not  want  to  hire  out  as  a  laborer. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Even  with  high  wages,  the  eight-hour  day,  and  the 
clamor  for  labor,  such  is  the  desire  to  own  homes  that  in  the  State  of 
New  Mexico  you  think  that  one-third  of  the  soldiers  would  want  to 
avail  themselves  of  this  plan? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  am  not  saying  that  one-third  of  the  total,  but  I 
say  that  one-third  of  those  who  have  come  home  would  want  this. 
You  see,  a  great  many  have  been  discharged  and  have  found  other 
places. 

I  do  not  think  a  great  many  of  our  men  are  going  to  go  into  one 
of  these  plans. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  percentage  would  you  say,  when  the  demobiliza- 
tion is  all  completed,  which  is  going  to  be  very  soon — I  have  seen  a 
great  many  soldiers  coming  from  our  ships  the  last  two  or  three 
days,  coming  into  our  ports,  and  they  all  ought  to  be  back  in  a  little 
while— what  would  be  your  statement  of  the  percentage  of  14,000  or 
15,000  soldiers  returning,  from  New  Mexico,  who  would  desire  to 
avail  themselves  of  the  project? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Probably  8  or  10  per  cent. 


422  HOMES   FOE   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Let  me  ask  you  this:  Are  many  of  the  soldiers  that 
have  come  back  to  New  Mexico  having  trouble  to  find  employment,  or 
are  they  falling  into  their  old  positions? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  We  have  placed  some  45  men  in  the  Council  of  Na- 
tional Defense  as  a  part  of  our  duties.  It  has  been  almost  altogether 
men  from  outside  of  the  State. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  have  placed  men  outside? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Soldiers  coming  from  other  States  than  New  Mex- 
ico. I  do  not  suppose  we  had  a  dozen  from  our  own  men. 

'Mr.  FERRIS.  They  have  all  dropped  back  into  their  own  work.  Of 
course,  after  the  Spanish- American  War  men  did  stalk  the  roads 
for  several  years  after  that,  as  members  of  this  committee  remember 
I  lived  on  a  farm  in  Missouri  at  that  time.  My  father  had  several 
farms.  The  street  was  lined  with  bleached  and  faded  soldiers  who 
couldn't  get  anything  to  do.  Mother  tried  to  feed  them,  but  father 
couldn't  hire  them  all.  And  they  walked  the  streets  in  hunger  with- 
out positions. 

Of  course,  that  condition  does  not  prevail  now  and  probably  will 
not  prevail.  With  the  high  wages  and  short  hours  ancl  labor  pretty 
plentiful,  the  number  that  will  avail  themselves  of  these  farm  lands 
will  be  less  in  percentage  than  if  it  were  otherwise.  Isn't  that  true  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Mr.  Springer,  do  you  believe  this  bill  is  sufficiently 
liberal  in  the  aid  it  extends  to  soldiers?  Do  you  believe  it  ought  to  be 
adopted  as  it  is  or  amended  to  make  it  more  liberal  in  opportunities 
to  the  returning  soldiers  in  the  matter  of  the  aid  it  extends  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  believe  the  soldier  will  be  better  off  if  he  is  not 
helped  too  much;  if  he  is  going  to  succeed  on  the  farm  he  should  be 
able  to  pay  for  aid. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  That  is  quite  true.  Do  you  favor  the  provisions  of 
this  bill? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  think  this  bill  should  be  adopted?  Is  it  suffi- 
ciently liberal? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  As  to  aid  extended  to  soldiers? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Yes. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  think  so. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Mr.  Springer,  I  would  like  to  ask  you  if  in  a  caM>  of 
this  kind  where  the  }7oung  man  has  returned  from  the  service,  say.  the 
son  of  a  farmer,  in  a  regiment  in  your  own  State,  and  he  has  means, 
possibly  enough  to  pay  on  25  per  cent  of  the  land ;  he  is  familiar  with 
the  conditions  that  exist  in  his  locality:  he  was  born  there,  raised 
there,  and  he  has  the  ambition  but  not  the  means  to  go  into  business. 
His  father,  for  a  number  of  different  reasons  not  necessary  to  state 
any  one  of  them,  is  unable  to  stake  him.  In  case  he  could  pay  ^5 
per  cent  on  that  land,  or  40  per  cent  on  it,  a  larger  amount  than  the 
Government  requires  and  yet  could  not  go  into  business  for  himself: 
don't  you  believe,  Mr.  Springer,  that  the  Government  would  be 
equally  as  well  safeguarded  if  he  should  be  allowed  to  purchase  a 
segregated  farm  with  which  he  is  familiar,  knowing  its  production 
qualities  and  I  he  possibilities  of  its  being  a  revenue-producing  project, 
with  the  ambition  and  vim  that  is  always  necessary  to  bring  success, 
don't  you  believe  the  Government  would  be  as  well  safe-guarded  in  a 
case  of  that  kind  as  in  anyone  of  these  projects? 


HOMES  FOB  SOLDIERS.  423 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Possibly  better  safeguarded. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  wanted  to  put  that  question  to  you. 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Possibly  better  safeguarded. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  will  ask  another  question.  Don't  you  believe,  too, 
that  this  young  man  with  the  prudent  view  of  things  that  he  has 
gotten  in  the  tw/o  years  of  Army  experience  would  be  as  likely  to  suc- 
ceed, possibly  more  so,  than  if  he  would  take  it  up  with  a  project 
where  he  is  not  familiar  with  conditions  ? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  I  do,  but  he  would  have  to  pay  the  market  price 
for  his  land,  whereas  in  the  project  he  might  get  it  at  a  price  which 
would  double  or  treble  in  a  few  years. 

Mr.  WHITE.  With  the  counsel  of  his  friends  he  would  be  better 
acquainted  with  the  market  price  of  lands  and  would  not  be  as 
likely  to  be  taken  advantage  of? 

Mr.  SPRINGER.  Perhaps. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Director  Davis  is  here. 

Mr.  JOHNSON  of  Mississippi.  Mr.  Chairman,  Congressman  Mc- 
Duffie,  of  Alabama,  has  phoned  and  asked  to  be  allowed  to  submit  a 
statement. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  would  like  to  have  him. 

Mr.  JOHNSON  of  Mississippi.  I  told  him  the  committee  would  soon 
conclude  and  for  him  to  come  right  up. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  J.  W.  SUMMERS,  REPRESENTATIVE  IN 
CONGRESS  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  WASHINGTON. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  delegation  from  the  State  of 
Washington  ask  me  to  make  a  very  brief  statement.  One-third  of 
the  State  of  Washington  lies  within  the  public  domain.  The  legis- 
lature in  March,  1919,  passed  legislation  for  the  organization  of  the 
State  reclamation  board.  They  also  enacted  legislation  which  will 
provide  $500.000  annually  for  the  next  ten  years  to  be  expended  for 
purposes  of  reclamation.  They  have  made  an  outright  appropriation 
of  $100,000  for  an  investigation  looking  to  the  reclamation  of  a  cer- 
tain area  within  that  State,  and  an  appropriation  of  $10,000  to  co- 
operate with  the  Federal  Government  in  the  investigation  of  another 
project.  All  of  this  vast  sum  that  has  been  provided  by  the  State  of 
Washington  was  to  allow  the  fullest  coperation  with  the  Federal 
Government. 

Our  reclaimed  lands  are  producing  annually  from  $30  to  $1.500 
per  acre.  Speaking  specifically,  I  will  say  that  we  have  lying  within 
one  county  200.000  acres  of  reclaimed  lands,  which  averaged  last  year 
$150  per  acre,  and  that  we  have  another  area  of  reclaimed  lands  which 
averaged  $280  per  acre,  and  that  we  have  several  other  similar  re- 
claimed areas  equally  productive  within  the  State  of  Washington. 
We  have  also  several  million  acres  of  unreclaimed  lands  lying  within 
the  State,  equally  fertile.  I  bring  this  to  the  attention  of  the  commit- 
tee because  it  has  been  so  repeatedly  stated  here  by  gentlemen  who 
are  not  familiar  with  these  lands  that  we  are  trying  to  give  the  sol- 
diers land  that  nobody  else  wants.  I  maintain  that  as  far  as  our  part 
of  the  country  is  concerned  we  are  offering  the  cream  of  the  land,  and 
an  opportunity  whereby  we  believe  the  energetic  soldier  can  provide  a 


424  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

home  for  himself  and  his  family.    I  have  before  me  a  wire  from  the 
Washington  State  Reclamation  Board,  in  which  they  say : 

We  have  examined  House  hill  487,  entitled  "  National  soldiers'  settlement  act," 
and  wish  to  urge  upon  you  the  necessity  for  pushing  passage  of  this  measure 
or  similar  legislation.  We  are  ready  for  complete  and  extensive  cooperation. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  In  your  opening  statement  did  you  state 
that  one-third  of  the  public  lands  lie  in  the  State  of  Washington? 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  No;  one-third  of  the  State  of  Washington  lies 
within  the  public  domain. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  AVe  will  be  glad  to  hear  now  from  Mr.  McDuffie. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  JOHN  McDTJFFIE,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN 
CONGRESS  FROM  ALABAMA. 

Mr.  McDurriE.  Gentlemen,  I  have  the  opportunity  of  making  a 
few  general  observations  before  this  committee.  I  have  come  here  on 
several  occasions  just  to  get  an  idea  what  you  propose  to  do,  and  I 
have  been  convinced,  if  you  please,  with  the  earnestness  with  which 
you  gentlemen  are  trying  to  work  out  this  proposition,  and  it  is  a 
big  proposition.  Your  first  thought,  regardless  of  this  suggestion  by 
certain  individuals  that  it  is  a  proposition  on  foot  to  reclaim  cer- 
tain particular  sections  of  this  country,  your  first  object,  I  take  it 
and  I  know  it  is,  is  to  try  to  get  Congress  to  show  its  appreciation 
of  the  service  of  our  soldiers.  I  put  no  credence  in  and  have  no 
patience  with  the  man  who  is  trying  to  be  a  stumbling  block  in  the 
way  of  this  legislation  by  saying  it  is  a  particular  scheme  for  some 
particular  locality.  I  know  you  are  not  thinking  even  of  that.  You 
are  all  trying  to  do  something  for  the  returning  soldiers. 

The  question  before  you  is  what  is  the  most  feasible  plan.  I  want 
to  go  on  record,  and  while  I  could  not  bind  the  Alabama  delega- 
tion in  my  remarks  I  can  go  so  far  as  to  say  the  whole  delegation  is  in 
favor  of  legislation  of  this  character  to  aid  the  returning  soldiers. 

Now,  this  is  a  great  piece  of  legislation.  The  question  of  getting 
the  man  on  the  farm  or  getting  him  into  some  work  where  he  can 
be  satisfied  and  where  his  mind  will  not  become  a  field  for  the  sowing 
of  the  seeds  of  propaganda  that  would  be  inimical  to  the  best  in- 
terests of  this  Government,  it  is  a  good  solution  for  that,  in  my 
judgment. 

The  average  soldier  coming  back  feels  that  the  Government  owes 
him  something.  The  Government  does  owe  him  something.  There 
is  no  question  about  it.  In  order  to  settle  him  on  a  farm  I  do  not 
mean  to  put  him  at  digging  stumps  or  clearing  land;  that  is  not 
the  proposition.  This  Government  can  do  it  and  it  is  big  enough 
to  do  it.  If  we  can  create  these  community  settlements  where  it 
will  be  attractive,  so  he  can  take  his  wife  there  and  start  a  home,  it 
will  be  a  great  thing  for  the  Government,  and  not  only  for  the  soldier 
but  for  the  Government.  I  want  to  go  on  record  as  heartily  in  favor 
of  this  legislation. 

Now,  the  question  that  has  been  troubling  me  as  I  heard  this  dis- 
cussion here  before  this  committee  is  what  will  we  do  with  the  man 
who  does  not  care  to  farm.  My  objection  to  the  bill  is  it  is  not  big 
enough.  I  think  you  are  mistaken  about  3  per  cent  of  the  soldiers 
taking  advantage  of  this  legislation.  I  think  there  will  be  25  per 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  425 

cent  in  the  end,  probably  more,  and  I  think  the  bill  does  not  carry 
appropriation  enough  and  is  not  big  enough  to  take  care  of  the  de- 
mands that  will  be  made  under  this  legislation.  That  is  my  humble 
judgment  about  this  bill.  The  Government  is  big  enough  to  do  big 
things  and  if  this  Government  can  create  these  localities,  no  matter 
where,  East  or  West  or  South  or  North,  or  wherever  they  may  be, 
why  you  are  doing  something  that  really  is  necessary  at  this  stage 
of  our  Government.  There  is  more  or  less  unrest  in  this  Govern- 
ment at  this  day  and  time,  and  the  congested  centers  need  to  be  re- 
lieved, and  if  you  can  get  these  men  out  and  get  them  happily  situ- 
ated on  these  lands  then  you  are  making  splendid  citizens  of  them, 
because  if  you  go  into  the  rural  parts  of  this  country  you  will  find  on 
an  average  splendid  Americanism.  It  is  no  place  for  Bolshevism; 
it  is  no  place  for  the  seeds  of  propaganda  that  would  tend  to  destroy 
the  principles  of  this  Government.  In  the  rural  parts  you  will  find 
genuine  Americanism  and  the  more  people  we  can  put  on  a  project 
of  this  kind  the  better  off  this  Government  will  be  in  the  future. 

Now,  as  I  said,  the  question  is  what  will  we  do  to  show  an  appre- 
ciation for  the  man  who  is  not  ready  to  go  on  the  farm:  does  not 
care  to  farm?  What  provision  will  we  make,  if  any?  It  may  be 
that  this  is  simply  a  beginning,  a  step  in  the  right  direction,  and  that 
we  do  not  expect  all  of  those  who  wish  the  opportunity  to  take  ad- 
vantage of  it  in  the  beginning.  As  I  understand,  this  legislation  is 
but  the  start,  if  you  please,  of  Congress  to  do  something  for  the 
returning  soldier,'  and  you  don't  expect  it  to  take  care  of  all  those 
who  we  wish  to  take  advantage  of  it. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Mr.  McDuffie.  in  your  opinion,  would  it  be  feasible  to 
make  this  proposition  to  4,000,000  soldiers?  The  Federal  Govern- 
ment will  approve  the  purchase  price  and  approve  and  appraise  and 
buy  or  loan  to  each  individual  soldier  a  sum  ranging,  say,  from 
$1.000  to  $2,500,  as  a  part  payment  on  either  a  farm  or  a  house  and 
lot  any  time  that  he  would  select  this.  Then  let  him  work  out  his 
own  salvation  for  the  balance. 

Mr.  McDuFFiE.  That  would  be  a  good  idea,  provided  we  can  safe- 
guard the  handling  of  the  $1,000  to  $2,500. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  With  legislation  to  restrict  its  alienation  and  compel 
him  to  keep  it.  Would  that  be  attractive  to  a  soldier  and  enable  him 
to  get  a  start  for  a  home  ? 

Mr.  McDuFFiE.  I  should  think  so.  I  don't  think  it  is  well  to  just 
turn  over  a  certain  amount  of  money  to  every  soldier  who  took  part 
in  this  war,  because  I  think  in  a  day,  a  week,  or  a  month  a  few  might 
have  it  all. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  It  might  be  a  Saturday  night  joy  ride  ? 

Mr.  MCDUFFIE.  That  is  the  idea. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  But  if  you  proposed  to  4,000,000  soldiers  that  the 
American  Government,  as  an  appreciation  of  your  service,  will  loan 
you  a  sum  not  exceeding  $2,500  to  pay  in  toto  or  in  part  payment  for 
a  home  on  a  spot  that  you  can  call  your  home,  where  would  we  land 
up  with  that  kind  of  a  proposition? 

Mr.  McDuFFiE.  And  not  say  that  they  must  go  to  farming!1 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Let  it  be  a  home  in  town  or  out  of  town,  wherever  he 
wants  to  select  it,  subject  to  the  approval  of  some  Federal  board  that 
would  see  he  didn't  pay  more  than  it  was  worth  and  see  that  he  got 
value  for  the  money. 


426  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  McDuFFiE.  I  don't  know  but  that  would  be  a  feasible  plan. 
I  do  not  think  that  would  have  a  tendency  to  drive  them  back  in  the 
congested  cities,  because  they  would  not  get  a  home  there  to  start 
with  on  that  much  money.  They  would  necessarily  go  to  the  more 
sparsely  settled  parts  of  the  Union. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  At  the  most,  if  everybody  took  a  $2,500  loan  from  the 
Government  for  the  purchase  of  a  home,  it  would  take  $10,000,000,- 
000.  If  every  soldier  got  a  long-tenure  loan  at  a  low  rate  of  interest 
to  apply  on  the  purchase  of  the  home,  that  might  in  the  last  analysis 
cost  the  Government  $10,000.000,000;  but,  again,  there  ought  to  be 
restrictions  thrown  about  that  so  that  if  a  man  owned  his  own  home 
he  could  not  avail  himself  of  it.  That  would  reduce  the  amount. 

Mr.  McDuFFiE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  So  far  as  this  goes,  you  think  this  is  a  step  in  the 
right  direction? 

Mr.  McDuFFiE.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  And  we  ought  to  urge  this  legislation  as  soon  as 
possible. 

Mjr.  McDuFFiE.  Unquestionably.  You  are  not  going  to  got  any 
sort  of  bill  that  will  please  everybody.  If  you  will  satisfy  the 
soldier,  and  that  is  the  main  purpose  of  our  legislation,  that  you 
are  trying  to  show  appreciation  for  his  services,  then  you  have  done 
a  good  work.  There  is  no  question  about  that.  The  fellow  that  is 
disgruntled,  if  he  is  not  a  soldier,  you  need  not  worry  about  him. 
Some  people  will  say  we  ought  to  have  a  settlement  in  our  commu- 
nity. We  ought  to  have  these  cut-over  lands,  or  arid  lands,  or  drain- 
age done,  wherever  it  may  be,  but  if  you  can  so  provide  in  this  legis- 
lation as  to  satisfy  the  soldier,  you  will  have  accomplished  your 
purpose  regardless  of  the  criticisms  that  may  be  made. 

My  State  legislature  will  meet  in  extraordinary  session  in  July 
and  they  are  going  to  make  some  provision  to  cooperate  with  the 
Government  in  this  legislation.  I  do  not  know,  I  could  not  even 
give  you  the  outline  of  it  just  now,  but  if  the  Government  sees  fit 
to  use  any  part  of  that,  then  the  State  is  ready  to  cooperate. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  would  you  say  to  a  proviso  incorporated  in 
this  bill  that  if  such  States  as  do  not  have  available  projects  and 
such  States  as  do  not  have  land  available  for  this  purpose,  then  and 
in  that  event  we  might  revert  to  a  plan  similar  to  the  one  I  have 
just  suggested. 

Mr.  McDrjFFiE.  Is  your  idea  to  see  that  some  soldiers  settle  in 
every  State  in  the  Union  ? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  have  that  in  mind,  yes;  because,  if  I  may  digress 
enough,  there  is  some  particularly  serious  objection  to  the  purpose 
of  forcing  a  man  in  Alabama,  for  instance,  to  go  to  Wyoming,  or  a 
man  in  Wyoming  to  go  to  Alabama.  I  do  not  mean  any  disrespect 
to  either  State,  but  a  man  who  loves  Alabama  would  rather  settle 
in  Alabama  than  in  Utah  or  Wyoming.  I  am  thinking  along  that 
line. 

Mr.  M(  DUFFIE.  I  think  that  is  a  good  thought  and  will  likely  meet 
with  the  approval  of  every  one. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Some  States,  like  Iowa  and  Kansas.  where  there 
would  not  bo  any  projects  of  this  kind,  do  not  relish  the  idoa  of  hav- 
ing their  boys  forced  to  go  to  some  other  State,  and  Mr.  Ferris's 
idea  is  possibly  there  might  be  some  amendment  here  that  would 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  427 

satisfy  the  objections  of  some  of  these  States  to  this  bill  on  that 
particular  ground. 

Mr.  McDuFFiE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  He  was  trying  to  get  your  idea  as  to  whether  or  not 
something  of  that  sort  could  be  worked  out  and  be  feasible. 

Mr.  McDuFFiE.  I  do  not  see  why  it  should  not  be,  provided  we  can 
get  enough  money  appropriated. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  If  they  took  the  maximum  and  everyone  were  a  home- 
less soldier  and  everyone  availed  himself  of  it,  the  gross  sum  used 
for  the  purpose  would  be  $10,000,000,000,  and  we  have  loaned  to 
our  allies  and  friends  in  this  war  $11,000,000,000.  Might  that,  cov- 
ering a  period  of  years,  not  be  too  great  a  sum?  It  would  not  all 
have  to  be  spent  to-morrow. 

Mr.  McDuFFiE.  That  is  my  judgment.  I  think  we  may  as  well 
begin  with  that  in  view,  with  the  idea  of  expanding  the  proposition 
to  that  extent.  I  think  that  would  be  the  best  feasible  plan. 

Mr.  GANDY.  After  securing  this  home  he  would  still  have  a  job  out 
of  which  he  could  make  a  living? 

Mr.  McDuFFiE.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  it. 

Mr.  GANDY.  What  could  we  do  toward  securing  him  a  job  and 
giving  him  a  position  for  his  time?  Don't  you  think  we  are  going 
far  to  undertake  to  buy  a  residence  or  a  bungalow  for  all  the  soldiers 
in  a  city  or  town  ? 

Mr.  McDuFFiE.  I  think  you  would  be  going  too  far,  if  there  were 
no  restrictions,  to  say,  "  Here  is  a  home  in  this  city  or  town  or  where- 
ever  you  want  it."  But  I  understand  there  would  be  certain  restric- 
tions with  this  proposition  of  loaning  him  the  money,  provided  he 
wishes  to  take  advantage  of  it  in  his  home  town  or  wherever  he  can 
make  the  best  bargain.  You  have  done  your  part.  If  he  is  not  able 
to  meet  his  payments  and  can  not  get  it  done,  then  he  has  fallen  down 
and  has  not  measured  up.  They  do  not  want  you  to  be  giving  them 
something.  It  is  simply  a  question  of  giving  them  opportunity.  You 
have  made  good  your  obligations  to  the  soldier  and  if  he  can  not  live 
up  to  his,  certainly  you  are  not  to  blame. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  We  could  reach  a  beneficial  result  to  the  soldier  by 
giving  him  a  long  tenure  loan  at  a  low  rate  of  interest  and  exempt 
the  property  while  it  was  under  this  legislation ;  class  it  as  Govern- 
ment property. 

Mr.  McDuFFiE.  Yes,  sir ;  I  am  in  favor  of  that  same  plan. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  We  did  that  with  the  farmers  on  the  farms.  We 
exempted  them  from  taxes. 

Mr.  McDuFFiE.  I  feel  I  can  safely  say  for  myself  and  the  rest  of 
our  delegation  that  we  are  heartily  in  favor  of  some  legislation.  I 
take  it  that  everybody  wants  to  do  something.  The  big  question  is, 
what  is  feasible  for  us  to  do? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  feel,  and  your  delegation  is  broad  enough  to 
favor  some  legislation,  although  it  does  not  like  every  part  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  McDuFFiE.  I  think  the  people  of  Alabama  feel  that  way  about 
it.  I  believe  while  they  may  not  approve  of  every  line  of  the  bill,  the 
general  tenor  of  the  bill  would  be  satisfactory  to  them. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  This  legislation  is  not  a  matter  of  perfection,  but  we 
have  got  to  do  the  best  we  can. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  do  not  believe  this  will  inure  solely  to  the 
benefit  of  the  West? 


428  HOMES   FOE  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  McDuFFiE.  No,  sir;  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  one  of  those  newly 
elected,  bewildered  fellows  up  here,  and  I  am  not  taking  myself  so 
seriously  as  to  think  I  can  make  suggestions  or  reform  anybody,  but 
I  regret  to  say  that  the  day  has  not  yet  come  when  we  can  get  along 
without  some  fellow  jumping  up  to  say  something  about  some  par- 
ticular section  of  this  country.  I  heard  a  gentleman  in  here  the  other 
day  say  something  repeatedly  about  my  own  part  of  the  country. 
I  am  going  to  hurrah  for  my  own  country.  I  am  for  the  whole 
country,  too;  I  am  for  my  own  country,  but  we  ought  to  be  big 
Americans.  We  ought  not  to  allow  little  things  like  that  to  enter 
into  our  minds.  We  ought  to  deal  with  this  on  a  big  scale  as  big 
Americans. 

I  do  not  think  it  is  for  the  benefit  of  any  particular  locality  or 
section.  I  think  it  is  intended,  and  I  know  this  committee  wants, 
to  do  something  for  the  soldiers,  regardless  of  where  the  land  is. 
The  idea  of  the  soldier  who  lived  in  Alabama  is  that  he  would 
rather  be  among  his  own  people  if  it  is  possible  for  you  to  give  him 
the  opportunity  there,  and  I  hope  some  plan  can  be  arrived  at  by  the 
committee  and  by  the  House  that  will  permit  us  to  give  the  soldier 
an  opportunity  at  his  own  home.  I  think  that  is  a  good  suggestion, 
because  they  do  not  want  to  leave  home  if  they  can  help  it.  Some 
of  them  would  do  it,  and  I  believe  you  will  find  that  my  prediction 
is  right,  that  more  than  3  per  cent  of  the  soldiers,  and  much  more 
than  that,  will  seek  advantage  of  this  legislation. 

Mr.  BAER.  That  is,  no  soldiers  would  seek  advantage  of  the  farms 
unless  they  could  really  own  those  farms — become  home  owners. 
They  would  have  to  have  the  right  of  tenure. 

Mr.  McDuFFiE.  How  is  that? 

Mr.  BAER.  The  soldiers  that  seek  them  will  want  to  own  them. 

Mr.  McDuFFiE.  I  do  not  like  the  idea  of  the  Government  taking 
hold  and  saying  we  must  do  this  and  that,  and  I  do  not  want  us  to 
approve  any  measure  along  that  line.  I  think  it  leads  to  too  much 
control. 

Mr.  BAER.  Do  you  know  that  one-third  oi'  the  people  live  in  the 
country  and  two-thirds  live  in  the  city  ? 

Mr.  McDuFFiE.  I  didn't  know  it  was  quite  so  great. 

Mr.  BAER.  Consequently,  every  time  you  make  a  farm  you  are 
making  opportunities  for  people  to  become  machinists  and  barbers 
and  butchers  in  the  near-by  city;  every  time  you  do  that  you  are 
building  up  an  opportunity  for  two  people  to  live  in  the  city  or 
town.  Don't  you  think  that  part  will  take  care  of  your  proposition 
to  give  an  opportunity  to  all  the  soldiers  ? 

Mr.  McDurriE.  Probably  so,  and  I  want  to  ask  for  information 
here,  if  you  please,  whether  or  not  you  propose  to  make  any  provi- 
sion in  this  bill  or  any  changes  to  affect  the  soldiers  of  the  Spanish- 
American  War.  Do  you  propose  to  include  them  in  this  legislation  ? 

The  CMATIJMAN.  That  is  a  matter  before  the  committee  which  was 
advocated  by  some  of  the  witnesses. 

Mr.  McDuFFiE.  I  would  like  to  see  it  done  if  it  is  at  all  possible. 
T  think  it  would  be  very  wise  legislation.  Of  course,  that  war  was 
not  as  big  a  war  and  not  so  much  involved.  I  think  it  would  be  well 
to  give  them  consideration,  if  possible.  T  will  leave  it  to  this  com- 
mittee to  give  them  all  that  is  fair,  for  I  know  you  men  are  really 
trying  to  do  your  full  duty. 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  429 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  appreciate  your  coming  before  the  committee. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Before  you  call  the  next  witness,  is  it  the  purpose  for 
Mr.  Davis  to  go  on  and  complete  his  statement  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  was  in  hopes  he  would  complete  it  to-day. 

Mr.  GANDT.  I  suggest  that  Director  Davis  ought  to  have  a  fresher 
audience  and  it  is  not  doing  him  justice  to  ask  him  to  address  us 
now. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  evidently  the  wish  of  the  committee  to  hear 
Mr.  Davis  to-morrow,  at  10  o'clock. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  move  that  with  the  testimony  of  Director  Davis 
the  hearings  close. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Let  us  not  take  action  on  that  to-day.  There  are  some 
other  members  that  are  figuring  on  being  here,  and  we  will  hear  from 
Mr.  Davis.  Let  us  hear  from  Mr.  Davis  first. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Might  we  have  an  executive  session  for  a  moment  or 
two? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BAER.  Here  is  a  soldier  boy  just  come  from  overseas  and  he 
says  they  are  all  enthusiastically  in  favor  of  this. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  come  to  order  and  go  into 
executive  session. 

(Thereupon,  at  12.30  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  committee  went  into  execu- 
tive session,  after  which  an  adjournment  was  taken  until  10  o'clock 
Wednesday  morning,  June  11,  1919.) 


COMMITTEE  ON  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS, 

HOUSE  or  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Wednesday,  June  11,  1919. 

The  committee  met  at  10.15  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Nicholas  J.  Sin- 
nott  (chairman)  presiding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  come  to  order.  We  have 
Director  Davis  before  us  this  morning,  gentlemen,  whose  testimony 
was  interrupted  last  week.  Mr.  Davis,  will  you  resume? 

I  might  say,  Mr.  Davis,  that  Mr.  Atkeson  in  his  criticisms  upon 
the  Reclamation  Service  referred  to  certain  data  in  the  June  Reclam- 
ation Record  of  1919,  and  criticized  the  showing  set  forth  on  page 
276  concerning  the  King  Hill  project  in  Idaho;  also  the  Lower  Yel- 
lowstone project,  Montana-North  Dakota,  referred  to  on  page  278  of 
the  June  Reclamation  Record;  and  also  the  report  upon  the  Lower 
Yellowstone  project,  Montana-North  Dakota,  referred  to  on  page 
279  of  the  June  Reclamation  Record.  You  have  seen  the  testimony 
of  Mr.  Atkeson,  and  I  would  like  to  get  your  views  upon  those 
reports  that  Mr.  Atkeson  referred  to. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  ARTHUR  P.  DAVIS,  DIRECTOR  OF  THE 
RECLAMATION  SERVICE. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  committee,  I  have 
the  abstract  of  Mr.  Atkeson's  testimony  before  me,  and  I  find  that  he 
was  somewhat  confused — no  doubt  honestly  so — as  to  the  meaning 
of  the  figures  he  quoted,  which  is  an  illustration  of  the  danger  of 
being  misled  by  a  half  truth. 


430  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

It  is  true  that  on  page  276  of  the  June  Reclamation  Record  the 
statement  is  made  that  the  wheat  upon  the  King  Hill  project  yielded 
an  average  of  4  bushels  per  acre.  There  were  only  125  acres  of  that 
altogether.  Evidently  that  was  a  crop  failure.  If  he  had  read  the 
footnote  of  the  same  table  that  is  printed,  just  under  the  table,  he 
would  have  read  this : 

Low  yield  due  to  irregular  flow  caused  by  breaks  in  canal.  This  project  was 
built  under  private  auspices  and  the  Government  is  undertaking  its  reconstruc- 
tion. Operation  and  maintenance  are  handled  by  the  settlers  through  an  irriga- 
tion district. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  his  testimony  was  inclined  to  give  the  com- 
mittee an  erroneous  idea — I  suppose*  inadvertently — by  not  reading 
that  explanation. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  fact  is  that  like  other  human  venture  the  attempt 
to  irrigate  arid  lands  does  not  always  succeed.  In  the  case  of  King 
Hill,  in  Idaho,  very  great  difficulties  existed,  and  not  sufficient  effort 
or  capital  was  available  to  carry  the  project  out  successfully  by  pri- 
vate enterprise,  and  the  project  failed  financially. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  was  not  a  Government  project  at  all  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  was  a  private  project,  a  private  enterprise,  and  after 
some  time  its  works  were  sold  at  sheriff's  sale  and  were  bought  by  the 
State.  Then  the  State  asked  the  United  States  to  take  it  up  and  gave 
the  United  States  clear  title  for  nothing,  and  the  United  States  is  now 
undertaking  the  construction  work  there.  Not  only  is  the  construc- 
tion work  incomplete  and  never  has  been  completed,  but  part  of  that 
which  was  completed  was  very  insecurely  built,  and  it  happened  last 
summer,  while  the  reconstruction  of  a  portion  of  it  was  under  way,  a 
portion  of  the  old  part  broke  and  interrupted  the  water  supply  at  such 
a  time  as  to  cause  a  failure  of  the  wheat  crop,  and  of  course  4  bushels 
to  the  acre  is  a  crop  failure,  and  Mr.  Atkeson  is  perfectly  correct  in 
saying  that  the  income  from  that  would  not  pay  for  the  water,  but 
that  is  not  any  fair  illustration  of  what  irrigation  can  do. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  When  did  you  take  over  that  project  and  start  to 
reconstruct  it  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  authority  to  take  it  over  was  given  by  Congress 
last  year,  and  we  began  the  reconstruction  last  year. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Let  me  ask  you,  was  not  the  failure  there,  Mr.  Director, 
due  to  engineering  mistakes  and  also  to  the  failure  of  the  corpora- 
tions furnishing  the  money  to  have  money  available  just  at  the  time  it 
was  necessary  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir.  The  United  States  has  never  operated  and 
does  not  now  operate  that  project;  it  has  no  contract  for  operating 
it.  In  fact,  it  is  specifically  relieved  from  any  such  possibility.  The 
reconstruction  is  all  that  we  are  undertaking,  and  that  is  now  un- 
der way.  We  were  greatly  hampered  last  year  by  lack  of  labor  dur- 
ing the  time  the  War  was  in  progress  and  shipbuilding  was  going 
on  at  a  great  rate,  but  that  difficulty  is  now  passed. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  even  with  that  irregular  flow  and  the  break- 
down in  the  canal  they  raised  alfalfa  per  acre  amounting  to  $32.94, 
as  shown  at  the  head  of  the  itemized  statement. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir.  In  regard  to  the  statement  concerning  the 
Lo\ver  Yellowstone,  Mr.  Atkeson  was  evidently  confused,  for  he 


HOMES   FOB  SOLDIERS.  431 

In  the  Yellowstone  project  in  Montana  and  North  Dakota — it  is  in  both 
States — in  1918  the  wheat  yield  of  this  project  was  15  bushels  an  acre,  which 
is  the  average  for  the  country,  but  the  total  acreage,  which  includes  the  pro- 
duction of  alfalfa  at  $33  an  acre  and  alfalfa  seed  at  $66  an  acre,  the  total 
production  of  those  acres  in  that  project  was  $31.85.  The  crop  on  the  Yellow- 
stone project  in  Montana  and  North  Dakota — that  seems  to  be  the  same  proj- 
ect— was  $11.39.  That  seems  to  be  the  same  thing. 

It  would  naturally  occur  to  one  to  investigate  the  cause  of  the  dif- 
ference between  $31.85  and  $11.39,  and  if  he  had  looked  he  would 
have  seen  that  one  headed  "  Irrigated  land,"  and  the  other  was 
headed  "  Nonirrigated  land,"  and  that  accounts  for  the  discrepancy. 

Mr.  SNELL.  It  was  $33  an  acre  where  it  was  irrigated  and  $11 
where  it  was  not  irrigated  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes;  $33  where  it  was  irrigated  and  $11.39  where  it 
was  not  irrigated. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  did  not  call  to  the  attention  of  the  committee 
the  fact  that  the  $11.39  was  on  the  nonirrigated  lands? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  SNELL.  How  much  does  the  water  cost;  do  you  remember, 
offhand  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  annual  charge  for  water  on  the  Lower  Yellow- 
ston  project  is  75  cents  per  acre-foot. 

Mr.  SNELL.  What  does  "  per  acre-foot  "  mean 

Mr.  DAVIS.  An  acre-foot  is  a  unit  of  water,  just  like  a  quart  or 
a  gallon  would  be  sufficient  to  cover  1  acre  1  foot  deep,  or  43,560 
water  that  would  be  sufficient  to  cover  1  acre  1  foot  deep,  or  43,560 
cubic  feet  of  water.  That  is  an  acre-foot,  and  75  cents  is  charged 
for  that,  and  2  feet  to  the  acre  would  cost  $1.50. 

Mr.  SNELL.  What  is  the  average  amount  used  on  an  acre  on  that 
project? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  presume  about  2  acre-feet,  or  a  little  less  than  2 
acre-feet,  probably. 

To  illustrate  the  difference  we  have  statistics  of  the  yield  during 
the  year  of  1918  for  the  entire  counrty,  the  average  yield  of  all  the 
crop.  The  gross  is  $32.92.  That  includes  the  entire  United  States. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  For  what  year? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  For  the  year  1918.  On  the  reclamation  projects,  taking 
good,  bad,  and  indifferent,  all  of  them,  the  average  is  $63.95  per  acre, 
almost  exactly  double  what  the  yield  of  nonirrigated  land  is,  taking 
the  country  over. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Does  that  include  orchards? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  includes  orchards,  but  there  is  but  little  orchard 
work  done  on  the  reclamation  projects. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  $32  includes  the  orchard  work? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  And  the  orchard  returns? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir:  as  a  matter  of  fact,  agriculture  in  the  coun- 
try at  large  is  so  much  older  than  that  on  the  reclamation  projects, 
built  by  the  Government,  that  the  percentage  of  orchards  is  prob- 
ably greater  in  returns,  and  there  are  only  two  of  our  projects  that 
have  anv  considerable  acreage  in  yielding  orchards,  Yakima  and 
Salt  River. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  heard  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Atkeson  about 
abandoned   projects,   irrigation   projects,   in   Colorado.     Are   there 
any  abandoned  Government  reclamation  projects  in  Colorado? 
133319—19 28 


432  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No,  sir;  we  have  two  projects  in  Colorado,  both  ol 
which  are  prosperous  and  operating. 

Another  statement  that  Mr.  Atkeson  made,  was  undoubtedly  made 
honestly,  but  I  think  it  is  open  to  question.  That  is  the  statement 
that  Mr.  F.  H.  Newell,  former  director  of  the  Reclamation  Service, 
whose  experience  in  settlement  work  and  in  colonization  in  the 
West  would,  of,  course,  carry  great  weight — he  claimed  that  Mr. 
Xe-vve.ll  was  opposed  to  this  bill,  as  I  understood  it,  or  at  least  to 
the  plan — and  he  submitted,  in  support  of  that  statement,  an  article 
Avritten  for  the  Vocational  Summary,  by  Prof.  Newell,  headed : 
"What  are  we  to  do  with  the  returning  soldiers  and  sailors? 
Shall  Ave  send  them  back  on  the  unutilized  farms,  as  many  persons 
advocate?"  The  article  covers  a  page,  and  is  mainly  a  series  of 
questions  Avithout  ansAvers,  which  throw  some  doubt  upon  the  wis- 
dom of  the  project,  undoubtedly.  The  strongest  statement  that  he 
does  make  is  that  with  which  he  closes.  He  says  this : 

Until  it  can  be  demonstrated  that  farming  is.  in  the  long  run,  as  profitable 
to  the  farmer  as  it  is  to  the  community,  or  yields  returns  comparable  to  those 
obtained  from  mechanical  trades,  it  is  unwise  to  urge  the  returning  soldier 
or  sailor  to  assume  the  new  duty  and  responsibility. 

Now,  if  this  bills  is  a  bill  to  urge  soldiers  and  sailors  to  go  onto 
the  farms,  and  if  it  is  true  that  farming  is  less  profitable  than 
mechanical  trades,  then  that  statement  of  Mr.  NeAvell's  might  be 
construed  to  mean  opposition  to  the  bill.  But  I  have  a  letter  from 
Mr.  Newell,  at  a  later  date,  beginning  as  follows: 

Herewith  is  a  copy  of  a  letter  I  am  sending  to  Secretary  Lane.  While  I  was 
disappointed  that  the  soldiers'  settlement  bill  did  not  pass,  I  was  not  at  all 
surprised,  as  my  acquaintances  outside  of  the  Reclamation  Service  were  very 
positive  at  all  times  that  this  scheme  would  not  go  through. 

That  is  the  first  paragraph  of  his  letter  to  me.  It  inclosed  a  copy 
of  a  letter  to  Secretary  Lane,  which  began  as  follows : 

DEAB  MR.  LANE:  The  failure  of  Congress  to  act  on  the  soldier  settlement 
bill  has  been  very  generally  commented  upon,  and  it  is  needless  for  me  to  ex- 
press to  you  my  regret  that  your  efforts  have  not  been  thus  far  more  successful. 

Those  letters  are  very  much  more  to  the  point  and  direct  regarding 
the  plan  of  Secretary  Lane.  The  article  is  of  a  general  nature,  and 
deals  not  only  with  the  suggestions  made  by  Secretary  Lane,  but 
with  others,  and  is  not  positive  in  opposing  this  particular  legisla- 
tion or  this  particular  plan. 

There  have  been  before  the  committee  four  diflerent  witnesses — 
and  I  do  not  know  but  more,  but  four  that  I  remember — who  have 
opposed  giving  title  to  the  soldier  Avhen  this  scheme  goes  through. 
Now,  that,  I  think,  in  the  minds  of  all  those  gentlemen  Avhom  I  heard, 
is  founded  upon  a  theory  that  the  benefits  of  the  increase  of  land 
\Talues  caused  by  the  presence  of  population  and  the  demand  for 
land,  and  not  caused  by  the  efforts  of  the  owner,  should  go  to  the 
community  which  creates  those  values  and  not  to  the  owner ;  and  if 
those  people  who  hold  those  A7iews  applied  them  generally  there 
might  be  some  argument  about  it,  but  that  is  a  totally  different  thing 
from  withholding  title.  It  is  not  necessary  to  secure  that  to  withhold 
title,  nor  is  it  promotive  of  that  idea  to  withhold  title. 

In  connection  with  this  matter  we  have  been  urged  to  alloAv  each 
soldier  to  select  his  own  farm  and  go  onto  that  farm,  and  the  Govern- 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  433 

ment  finance  him  thereon,  loaning  him  100  per  cent  of  the  value 
thereof.  I  mention  that  now  because  those  two  propositions  are  very 
closely  interlaced.  We  have  a  variety  of  reasons  for  determining, 
deciding  upon  a  colony  proposition.  This  matter  was  discussed  be- 
fore the  Committee  on  Appropriations  last  spring,  and  the  fact  was 
brought  out,  as  we  have  known  for  a  long  time,  that  it  is  not  by  any 
means  a  new  proposition.  The  philosophy  of  placing  settlers  all  over 
the  country  wherever  the  individual  desires  to  go,  is  an  old  one.  It 
has  been  tried  in  Europe ;  it  has  been  tried  in  Australia ;  it  has  been 
tried  by  private  enterprise  in  this  country  to  a  certain  extent — never 
to  100  per  cent — but  so  far  as'that  proposition  has  ever  been  tried  by 
a  Government,  so  far  as  my  information  goes,  it  has  alwa37s  failed. 

Let  me  read  what  is  said  by  an  experienced  man  on  that  subject. 
You  have  heard  in  these  hearings  of  Dr.  Elwood  Mead,  who  for  sev- 
eral years  was  in  charge  of  rural  settlement  in  Australia,  and  in 
preparation  for  that  work  he  and  the  commission  of  which  he  was 
a  member  made  an  extensive  tour  in  Europe  to  examine  the  rural 
settlements  in  Europe.  He  examined  them  in  Germany,  in  Italy, 
in  Denmark,  and  in  Ireland,  and  in  every  place  where  they  could 
find  them,  and  they  examined  carefully  into  their  different  ^experi- 
ments, the  laws  and  rules  under  which  they  operated,  the  method  of 
doing  anything,  and  the  success  or  nonsuccess  which  had  attended 
their  efforts ;  and  in  the  document  which  I  hold  in  my  hand,  which  is 
"  Hearings  before  the  subcommittee  of  the  House  Committee  on 
Appropriation  in  charge  of  the  Sundry  Civil  Appropriation  bill  for 
1920,  Sixty-fifth  Congress,  Third  Session."  Dr.  Mead  gave  a  brief 
account  of  his  experience  to  the  committee,  and  this  question  was 
put  to  him :  Whether  or  not  it  would  be  better  to  settle  the  soldiers 
wherever  they  desired  to  be  settled,  or  to  scatter  them  among  exist- 
ing settlement.  He  replied  as  follows: 

When  we  began  to  provide  opportunities  for  settlers  in  Australia,  this  argu- 
ment was  used :  "  Help  individuals  buy  farms  wherever  they  want  to  live." 
We  started  doing  that. 

Two  or  three  people  would  buy  a  farm  formerly  owned  by  one  person.  That 
plan  was  a  complete  failure  and  the  trouble  was  this:  The  farm  buyer  had  to 
pay  for  the  farm  in  addition  to  making  the  living.  Around  him  were  people 
owning  farms  and  living  in  a  generous  way.  The  man  who  had  a  farm  to  pay 
for  would  have  to  work  harder,  wear  poorer  clothes,  and  be  more  economic 
than  his  neighbors,  and  he  wouldn't  do  it.  We  found  that  a  large  percentage  of 
these  isolated  settlers  were  not  meeting  their  payments ;  and  if  we  sent  a  man 
to  see  them,  we  would  have  to  pay  his  railroad  fare  to  and  fro,  as  well  as  his 
salary,  and  oftentimes  when  he  got  there  he  couldn't  do  anything;  and  if  the 
farm,  was  surrendered,  it  was  hard  to  sell  it.  To  make  a  long  story  short,  we 
had  to  abandon  th;>t  plan.  We  had  to  have  a  certain  number  of  people  to  go 
with  the  enterprise  who  would  look  after  the  settlement  to  see  that  the  farming 
was  done  right,  to  help  the  inexperienced,  and  speed  up  the  slackers.  It  is  the 
conclusion  of  the  commission  that  has  investigated  individual  settlements  and 
community  settlements  in  England,  and  it  is  the  conclusion  in  Australia  that 
there  must  be  at  least  100  people  in  a  settlement  to  make  the  thing  solvent. 
Then  the  Government  can  afford  to  hire  a  man  to  look  after  it  without  the 
overhead  becoming  too  burdensome. 

So  you  see,  gentlemen,  the  proposition  to  settle  on  individual  farms 
scattered  throughout  the  country,  irrespective  of  allowing  WOper 
cent  on  those  farms,  is  one  that  has  been  tried  and  has  failed.  When 
you  see  a  man  of  prominence,  who  has  a  reputation  to  sustain  and  a 
future  to  look  out  for,  stating  in  public  like  that,  that  he  has  tried 
something,  and  that  he  has  failed,  you  can  come  pretty  near  believing 


434  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

him.  If  somebody  else  said  he  failed,  you  might  question  it.  But 
that  is  the  fact,  that  it  has  failed  there  and  failed  in  England,  and 
they  have  adopted  a  similar  limit  in  England.  If  this  proposition  is 
to  be  made  solvent,  that  plan  won't  work. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Mr.  Davis,  now  I  appreciate  that  kind  of  testimony 
and  give  credence  to  it,  but  what  have  you  got  to  say  in  regard  to  this 
man  from  the  Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Railroad,  who  sajTs  he 
has  been  doing  the  same  thing  in  this  country  and  has  made  a  success 
of  it — putting  men  on  individual  farms?  That  was  his  testimony 
here. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  heard  his  testimony;  yes.  I  know  nothing  about  the 
facts  except  what  he  stated,  and  you  heard  that. 

Mr.  SNELL.  But  his  testimony  is  almost  the  opposite  of  this  of 
Dr.  Mead's. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  To  this  extent,  his  testimony  and  that  of  Dr.  Mead 
was  the  same  to  the  extent  that  all  of  these  men  wrere  put  upon  one 
large  tract  where  their  condition  was  parallel  in  all  respects.  They 
were  not  in  isolated  settlements.  In  a  way,  the  whole  thing  was  a 
virgin  proposition,  and  everybody  that  started  started  on  a  par,  so 
there  wouldn't  be  the  comparison  that  Prof.  Mead  speaks  of,  that 
destroyed  the  thing  in  Australia. 

Mr.  VAILE.  And  they  started  in  a  neighborhood  where  other  men 
were  starting  in  in  the  same  way. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  Exactly. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  My  understanding  of  it  was  that  Mr.  Hunter's  enter- 
prise was  taken  up  on  large  tracts  of  land,  and  that  he  did  settle 
large  numbers  of  settlers  in  the  same  vicinity.  He  put  them  on  large 
tracts:  he  discouraged  less  than  320  acres,  and  as  a  dry-farming 
proposition,  I  think  it  is  right.  It  is  a  dry-farming  proposition  and 
to  make  that  a  success,  you  must  plow  all  the  land  every  year  and 
crop  it  only  every  other  year.  You  let  it  lie  fallow  every  other 
year — what  is  called  "  summer  fallow,"  and  to  do  that  you  have 
got  to  have  a  larger  acreage  than  for  intensive  farming.  By  dry- 
farming  methods  you  can't  undertake  intensive  farming  as  you  can 
under  irrigation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Would  I  interrupt  you  there — you  stopped  read- 
ing from  that  House  document  at  a  point  where  Mr.  Mondell  put 
this  question : 

Mr.  MONDELL.  In  other  words,  you  nwst  do  your  development  work  with 
considerable  areas,  where  you  would  control  all  of  the  land  on  which  you  would 
establish  these  communities? 

Dr.  MEAD.  Yes.  sir ;  and  that  makes  it  possible  to  create  cooperative  organi- 
zations. We  couldn't  have  bought  material  to  any  advantage  if  \ve  had  bought 
only  one  farm  here  and  there,  but  in  buying  for  100  or  150  settlers,  as  we  have 
been  buying  in  California,  we  are  able  to  get  wholesale  rates,  and  even  better 
rates  than  that. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir;  I  was  going  to  expand  on  that  a  little. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  Please  expand  on  the  proposition  of  the  lower  cost  of 
the  land,  considering  the  improvements  as  well,  as  to  whether  he 
gets  the  unearned  increment,  I  mean,  on  the  colony  proposition,  and 
where  he  does  not  get  that  if  he  goes  into  a  settled  community. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  exactly  what  I  was  intending  to  do.  That  is 
why  I  mentioned  those  two  things  in  conjunction.  If  we  can,  as 
1  slated  the  other  day,  buy  tracts  of  five  or  ten  thousand  acres  of 
land,  up  to — 


HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS.  435 

Mr.  SNELL  (interposing).  What  will  be  the  smallest  amount  you 
think  will  be  available? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  will  depend  upon  the  locality.  I  think  a  project 
of  four  or  five  thousand  acres  near  a  large  city,  that  was  adapted  to 
trucking,  could  be  made  successful,  but  Avhere  you  have  to  go  farther 
away  and  give  a  larger  area  to  the  individual,  it  would  take  more 
land,  and  I  think  probably  the  minimum  of  100  families  is  approxi- 
mately correct.  But  I  do  not  think  that  any  hard  and  fast  rule  of 
that  kind  should  be  made,  because  conditions  differ  so.  For  example, 
in  some  localities  they  have  very  different  county  agents  who  might 
be  competent  in  some  cases  to  undertake  the  supervision  of  a  some- 
what smaller  colony  in  conjunction  with  other  work  he  does,  with- 
out jeopardizing  the  success  of  the  project. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Davis,  it  has  not  been  determined  or  even  demon- 
strated yet  that  25  or  30  or  40  or  50  or  60  families  would  not  make  a 
success  in  a  project,  has  it? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Xo.  sir;  but  it  is  demonstrated  unquestionably  that  a 
colony  as  small  as  that  would  have  a  higher  overhead  proportion  of 
expense  than  a  larger  colony  would,  if  they  get  the  same  expert  serv- 
ice and  advice.  Now,  those  expert  services  and  advices — those  ex- 
pert assistants  are  very  important.  For  example,  on  our  project  and 
in  any  settlement  that  is  undertaken  nowadays,  and  applying  also 
to  the  individual  ownerships  that  have  been  discussed — take  the 
reclamation  project  at  present;  we  open  enough  land  for,  say.  100 
families.  Settlers  go  in  there — they  come  from  all  parts  of  the 
country.  They  file  and  take  their  chances  on  whether  they  get  a 
homestead  or  not.  A  fellow  goes  out  and  pays  somebody  something 
to  show  him  his  particular  tract  and  he  looks  it  over  and  picks  out 
a.  place  for  his  house.  He  never  planned  a  house  before  in  his  life; 
he  has  to  make  his  own  plans;  he  has  to  go  to  some  town  and  hire  a 
carpenter  whom  he  never  saw  before:  he  has  to  hire  a  painter;  he 
has  to  hire  a  glazier;  he  has  to  hire  a  bricklayer  to  put  in  the  foun- 
dation ;  he  has  to  hire  a  number  of  people  in  that  way,  some  of  whom 
may  be  incompetent — probably  will  be.  He  has  to  haul  them  out  to 
his  place  to  do  a  little  job  of  work  that  has  to  be  done,  and  he  has 
to  send  them  back.  He  has  to  buy  the  little  lumber  that  he  wants  in 
the  local  lumberyard,  and  probably  he  can't  get  the  kind  of  lumber 
that  he  ought  to  have ;  probably  he  can't  get  the  dimensions  that  he 
ought  to  have,  and  he  has  to  take  what  he  can  get  and  pay  retail 
prices  for  it  and  haul  it  out  and  saw  it  up  by  hand  on  the  ground. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Right  in  that  connection  now,  supposing — 

The  CHAIRMAN  (interposing).  Xow,  gentlemen,  if  he  is  going  to 
be  interrupted,  I  think  Mr.  Benham  wanted  to  ask  a  question  a  few 
minutes  ago. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  just  wanted  to  supplement  a  question  awhile  ago, 
but  go  ahead. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  simply  didn't  want  Mr.  Benham  to  lose  his 
opportunity  if  Mr.  Davis  is* going  to  be  interrupted. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  He  had  a  certain  question  awhile  ago  that  I  was 
anxious  to  ask  him  about  now.  I  can.  however,  hold  it  until  he  gets 
through. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  cooperative  plan  that  we  propose  would  do  away 
with  all  that.  Instead  of  the  farmer  paying  twice  as  much  as  he 
should,  wasting  a  lot  of  his  own  time,  paying  more  than  he  should 


436  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

for  his  house,  and  having  as  a  result  a  poorly  built  house,  insanitary, 
inconvenient,  and  everything  wrong,  the  plans  will  all  be  made  in 
advance  by  experts  from  which  this  farmer  can  select  a  house  adapted 
to  his  taste,  his  financial  condition,  the  size  of  the  family,  and  the 
location  where  he  expects  to  live.  He  will  have  a  number  of  good 
plans  to  select  from.  He  will  have  a  bill  of  materials  worked  out 
by  experts.  Those  materials  will  be  ordered  for  hundreds  or  thou- 
sands of  houses.  They  will  be  sawed  up  to  dimensions  at  the  mills, 
shipped  in  by  the  carload  or  trainload.  exactly  the  kind  and  dimen- 
sions wanted.  Crews  of  carpenters,  masons,  glaziers,  painters,  and 
all  the  expert  or  skilled  mechanics  that  are  required  to  build  that 
house,  and  the  architect  to  supervise  them  all  and  see  that  it  is  done 
right  will  be  there.  Those  houses  will  be  constructed  on  a  quantity 
basis.  When  they  get  through  with  one  house  they  will  go  and  build 
another  just  like  it. 

Xow,  we  know  what  a  vast  difference  it  makes  whether  you  are 
building  two  or  three  automobiles  by  hand,  or  whether  you  turn  out 
1,000  a  day.  The  difference  is  between  detail  and  quantity  produc- 
tion, not  only  in  the  construction  and  provision  of  the  house  itself, 
but  in  the  purchase  of  materials,  in  getting  the  materials  sawed  up 
by  machinery  in  the  mill  where  it  is  sawed,  and  purchasing  it  by 
wholesale,  shipping  it  in  by  wholesale,  and  having  everything  done 
in  a  wholesale  way.  The  same  kind  of  advice  can  be  exercised  in 
the  selection  of  stock.  You  can  afford  to  employ  the  highest  experts 
obtainable  at  almost  any  price  to  select  thoroughbred  cattle, 
thoroughbred  horses,  thoroughbred  sheep,  or  hogs,  or  chickens,  or 
anything  else  that  is  wanted,  and  every  colony  that  the  United  States 
handles  would  get  the  advantage  of  the  expert's  skill,  because  he 
could  go  to  half  a  dozen  different  markets  in  the  same  year  and 
supply  hundreds  of  these  colonies  with  the  same  skill.  That  is  abso- 
lutely impossible,  even  for  colonies  under  private  enterprise,  and 
how  much  more  impossible  for  the  individual  himself?  So  that 
every  one  of  these  men,  even  with  a  small  farm,  a  small  allotment 
close  to  town  that  only  has  1  or  2  acres,  and  only  one  cow.  can  have 
the  services  of  a  high-grade  thoroughbred  bull,  and  the  same  way 
with  the  pigs  that  he  has.  He  don't  have  to  own  a  $10,000  sire  to 
get  the  advantage  of  that  sire.  And  the  community  that  has  had 
such  advantages,  being  related  to  and  under  the  same  management 
as  some  other  community  when  the  time  comes  that  they  have  to 
change  that  sire  on  account  of  the  relation  of  its  progeny,  that 
change  can  be  made  without  any  cost  but  the  freight. 

Now,  that  is  merely  an  illustration  of  a  thousand  other  things. 
These  men  will  need  more  or  less  instruction  or  experience,  more  or 
less  practice,  and  I  think  of  these  as  colonies  where  there  can  be 
a  small  agricultural  school  supervised  by  the  highest  grade  experts 
obtainable.  Those  schools  will  largely  be  established  and  under  the 
supervision  of  a  high-grade  expert  from  the  agricultural  college  of 
the  State,  or  the  commissioners  of  agriculture  of  the  States  can  lie 
brought  in,  and  so  far  a  great  many  of  them  have  already  expressed 
a  willingness  to  cooperate.  We  are  right  now  arranging  for  co- 
operation with  this  in  view  with  the  University  of  Arizona,  where 
they  are  proposing  now  to  make  investigations  with  State  money 
that  will  be  available  if  we  should  take  up  the  project.  They  are 
going  to  investigate  the  matter  of  soldier  settlements. 


HOMES  FOE  SOLDIEKS.  437 

Now,  Mr.  Benham,  pardon  me  for  keeping  you  waiting  so  long. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  can  withhold  my  question  until  you  get  though 
just  as  well. 

Mr.  KAKER.  If  Mr.  Benham  is  going  to  hold  his  question,  I  want 
to  ask  this  further  question  here.  You  say  there  would  have  to  be 
settlements,  you  thought,  of  100  families  at  least;  from  that  on  up, 
and  then  your  illustration  describes  and  gives  the  reason  for  it. 

Would  it  make  it  any  different,  Mr.  Davis — supposing  you  had  one 
settlement  at  Alturas  and  one  at  Canby,  20  miles  away,  of  15,000 
acres,  and  one  over  at  Centerville,  another  15  miles  away  of  10,000 
acres,  and  then  one  down  at  Likely,  of  30,000  acres,  and  then  one  off 
in  the  Pitt  River  in  the  other  direction  20  miles  away — 

Mr.  ELSTON  (interposing).  You  are  selecting  all  these  in  your  own 
district.  Judge. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  might  get  over  the  line  into  Oregon,  Judge. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr.  RAKER.  There  is  nothing  like  a  concrete  case.  You  have  got 
the  question  as  far  as  I  have  gone,  Mr.  Davis,  without  repeating  it? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  haven't  heard  any  question  yet. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  was  just  slightly  interrupted. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  have  heard  you  so  far. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  the  same  argument  and  the  same  reasons  would 
apply  as  you  have  already  given,  and  these  propositions  could  be 
handled,  by  one  farm  adviser  or  superintendent  or  whatever  you 
would  call  him,  just  as  well  as  though  it  was  all  in  one  tract,  to  the 
end  that  you  might  get  smaller  tracts  of  land  of  10.000  or  15.000 
acres,  or  5,000  acres,  under  projects  like  this,  although  they  are  10  or 
15  miles  apart.  There  you  would  get  practically  the  same  results  as 
though  it  was  all  in  one  tract  of  land,  would  you  not? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  there  would  be  some  difference.  Of  course 
the  proximity  of  the  different  projects  would  have  an  effect;  it  would 
have  an  influence. 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  your  view,  could  that  be  done?  Because  that  is 
the  topography  of  nine-tenths  of  all  the  land  that  is  going  to  be 
used  with  reference  to  irrigation  projects.  There  is  a  mountain  be- 
tween and  land  that  is  not  accessible  of  irrigation. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  don't  know  of  any  irrigation  projects  that  I  want 
to  tackle  of  less  than  10,000  acres.  That  is  enough  for  a  colony. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well.  5,000  acres,  if  it  is  10  miles  from  the  other  one, 
would  work  just  as  well,  wouldn't  it? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  wouldn't  work  just  as  well.  It  would  probably  do 
all  right,  but  we  haven't  built  any  project  so  small  as  that  yet  in  the 
reclamation  service. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  know  you  have  not.  That  is  just  the  reason  I  am 
putting  this — if  from  your  observation  it  could  not  be  worked  out 
successfully. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  could  be  worked  probably,  but  it  would  not  be  as 
advantageous  as  a  large  colony.  As  I  say,  the  overhead  is  bound 
to  be  larger  on  a  small  colony  than  on  a  large  one. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Even  though  they  were  10  or  15  miles  apart? 

Mr.  DAMS.  Any  scattering  tends  to  increase  the  cost,  of  course, 
necessarily,  and  it  also,  to  a  certain  extent,  involves  the  difficulty  that 
Dr.  Mead  described  of  mixing  this  colony  with  people  in  more*  pros- 
perous conditions.  That  is  one  of  the  psychological  reasons. 


438  HOMES   FOE   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  just  wanted  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  in 
1909  the  National  Irrigation  Congress  recommended  this  sort  of  a 
plan  for  the  development  of  our  arid  West,  although  all  the  present 
projects  were  practically  established,  and  there  hasn't  been  unj  differ- 
ence of  opinion  upon  that  resolution  enunciated  by  that  congress  as 
to  the  method  of  developing  the  western  lands,  and  I  just  wondered 
whether  or  not  you  had  given  sufficient  consideration  to  the  question 
of  whether  it  would  make  any  material  difference  and  whether  or 
not  tracts  located  as  I  have  specified,  several  tracts,  could  not  practi- 
cally be  used  at  the  same  time. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  presume  that  tracts  15  miles  apart,  as  you  have  said, 
could  be  worked  together  all  right. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Now,  I  have  given  some  of  the  reasons — the  economy 
of  construction,  preparing  the  farm,  that  the  farmer  has  to  undertake 
and  pay  for — as  an  argument  in  favor  of  the  colony.  Now.  there  is 
one  other  equally  as  strong,  and  in  some  respects  stronger,  regarding 
cooperation  in  marketing.  When  I  went  to  southern  California,  in 
1891,  the  citrus  industry  there  was  practically  a  failure.  Although 
they  could  raise  oranges  and  lemons  all  right,  they  frequently  fell 
down  in  their  marketing.  Since  then  they  have  worked  out  ;i  won- 
derful cooperative  scheme  for  marketing,  and  it  has  changed  the  whole 
face  of  things.  The  same  kind  of  an  enterprise  is  in  operation  for  the 
marketing  of  fruits  in  the  State  of  Washington  and  various  other 
parts  of  the  country.  I  think  they  have  one  in  Colorado.  They  have 
illustrated,  they  have  blazed  the  way  by  which  we  know  that  having 
larger  ramifications  and  a  larger  organization,  still  more  of  that  kind 
of  cooperation  could  be  and  would  be  introduced  by  the  Government, 
so  that  by  cooperative  marketing,  cutting  out  a  great  deal  of  the  ex- 
pense of  handling,  a  great  deal  of  unnecessary  transportation,  we 
would  secure  not  only  higher  prices  for  the  producer  but  lower  prices 
to  the  consumer. 

As  an  illustration,  take  the  city  of  Washington.  We  are  paying 
more  than  twice  as  much  for  our  milk  as  the  producer  gets.  It  is 
costing  more  to  distribute  that  milk  than  it  does  to  produce  it.  We 
have  apartment  houses  of  moderate  size  in  this  city  through  which 
16  deliveries  go  every  morning,  delivering  milk,  when  one  might  fill 
the  function  more  promptly,  more  satisfactorily,  with  better  results, 
and  with  a  saving  of  three-fourths  or  nine-tenths  of  the  cost  of  dis- 
tribution. Now,  how  Washington  is  to  solve  that  problem  for  itself 
is  not  my  business,  but  it  illustrates  a  difficulty  that  pertains  to  almost 
everything  that  the  farmer  produces,  more  than  to  anything  else 
that  is  produced,  because  the  farmer's  products  are  mostly  perish- 
able, like  milk  and  vegetables  and  fruits,  such  as  they  produce  and 
can  produce  in  still  greater  quantities,  and  would  be  consumed  in 
much  greater  quantities  if  they  could  be  obtained  more  cheaply.  We 
will  increase  the  consumption  of  fresh  fruits  and  vegetables  and  milk, 
and  that  is  needed  in  this  country  more  than  any  other  shortage  of 
food  that  is  threatened — very  much  more.  An  illustration  of  that  is 
what  happened  in  England.  Of  course,  we  know  the  Englishman  is  a 
man  who  doesn't  like  to  be  interfered  with.  Ho  believes  in  personal 
liberty,  and  has  for  generations.  This  war  cuiue  on  him  with  con- 
siderable of  a  shock.  The  Government  had  to  take  hold  of  a  great 
many  things  that  the  Government  had  previously  let  alone. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  439 

They  took  over  all  the  transportation  lines  and  a  great  many  things 
like  that,  and  shortly  after  they  got  into  the  war  the  medical  men 
pointed  out  that  their  milk  supply  was  largely  cut  off.  .  They  got  a 
great  deal  of  milk  from  Denmark,  some  from  Holland — shipments 
from  the  continent  were  stopped  for  one  reason  or  another — you  know 
as  well  as  I.  They  pointed  out  that  more  than  half  their  milk  supply 
was  cut  off  and  that  the  babies  would  die  by  thousands,  hundreds  of 
thousands,  if  that  were  not  remedied.  To  remedy  that,  so  far  as 
possible,  the  Government  prohibited  the  sale  of  milk  except  on  per- 
mit, took  possession,  and  issued  permits  only  to  people  who  needed 
milk,  supplying  first  people  who  had  children  to  be  served  and  people 
who  actually  neded  it.  letting  those  who  used  milk  more  as  a  luxury 
or  merely  for  taste  and  did  not  actually  need  it.  go  without.  They 
kept  actual  statistics,  as  they  always  have,  on  infant  mortality,  and 
one-half  the  milk  supply  distributed  in  that  way.  where  it  belonged, 
cut  dowrn  infant  mortality  in  England  more  50  per  cent  in  about  two 
years.  That  is  information  that  I  got  from  the  Red  Cross  Magazine. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Davis,  may  I  ask  you  this  question  ?  It  is  one  that 
has  been  quite  acute  in  my  mind,  as  to  whether  or  not  about  two- 
thirds,  or  practically  all  of  these  cooperative  organizations  such  as 
flour  mills  and  stores,  have  not  failed  in  the  last  10  years? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  have  no  statistics  on  that  point.  I  know  there  are  a 
great  many  that  have  been  successful.  There  are  vast  cooperative  in- 
stitutions of  that  kind  in  Europe. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  am  referring  now  to  the  United  States,  if  it  is  not  a 
fact  that  two-thirds  of  them  in  the  United  States  in  the  last  10 
years  have  failed  or  gone  out  of  business. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  probably  that  is  a  very  conservative  statement, 
and  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  men  who  enter  any  private  business 
fail. 

Mr.  HERSMAX.  Mr.  Davis,  isn't  it  a  fact  that  those  cooperative 
associations  that  have  failed,  have  failed  because  they  were  not 
backed  up  by  sufficient  capital  to  start  with  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Well,  I  couldn't  say  about  that.  I  suppose  there  are 
different  causes  for  each  individual  case,  probably  bad  management 
and  everything  else  comes  in. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  They  are  working  for  the  public  instead  of  for 
themselves.  Don't  that  have  something  to  dp  with  the  failure,  that 
the  helpers  in  these  cooperative  concerns  don't  have  the  personal  in- 
centive to  succeed?  Isn't  that  a  very  large  element  of  the  cause  of 
failure? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  may  be ;  that  is  one  influence. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  was  just  simply/  asking  that  question  because  it  has 
been  brought  home  to  me  very  vividly  in  the  10  or  15  that  are  within 
my  own  personal  knowledge.  I  just  wanted  to  ask  you  as  to  the 
community  settlement,  say  now  of  100  families  on  one  of  these  proj- 
ects. If  the  Government^  secured  the  live  stock,  the  sire  or  the  bull, 
might  they  not  get  into  a  row,  one  would  want  one  kind  of  stock,  and 
one  would  want  another  and  you  would  have  the  community  in  a 
constant  turmoil  as  to  what  particular  kind  of  live  stock  they 
wanted?  You  see  that  every  day. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  have  no  doubt  there  would  be  a  chance  for  the  exer- 
cise of  tact  in  carrying  out  this  law.  I  thoroughly  appreciate  that 


440  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

it  has  got  to  be  done  tactfully  and  skillfully,  but  when  the  public 
mind  becomes  convinced  that  that  is  the  effort,  my  experience  is 
that  people  become  very  charitable  toward  mistakes,  if  they  be- 
lieve the  effort  is  honest.  I  have  found  that  to  be  a  fact,  a  principle 
which  has  led  me  to  have  a  very  much  higher  regard  for  mankind  in 
general  than  I  once  had,  because,  knowing  that  squabbling  is  very 
frequently  due  to  bad  service  of  one  kind  or  another 

Mr.  WHITE  (interposing).  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Davis  one 
question.  Would  the  colonies  be  eligible  to  membership  in  these 
marketing  associations?  Would  there  be  any  difficulty  in  getting 
into  them,  do  you  think? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  None  whatever.  The  association  is  always,  whether 
public  or  not,  anxious  to  take  in  all  the  memberships  they  possibly 
can.  The  chief  difficulty  is  to  get  people  to  come  in,  and  I  have 
known  of  associations  that  failed  for  lack  of  doing  that. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  was  speaking  of  the  marketing  of  fruit,  the  Fruit 
Growers'  Association  as  it  exists  in  the  extreme  western  cities. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  know  of  none  of  those  that  are  exclusive.  They 
have  great  difficulty  in  getting  the  fruit  growers  to  unite  and  join 
the  association,  and  that  has  been  the  cause  of  failure  in  some  of  them, 
to  my  knowledge. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Are  those  organizations  for  the  purpose  of  stabilizing 
and  maintaining  prices  at  fixed  standards? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  They  are  principally  for  the  purpose  of  cutting  out 
the  expenses  of  distribution  and  the  expense  of  handling,  cutting  out 
the  profits  of  the  commission  man,  and  the  unscrupulous  methods 
of  the  commission  man  largely.  For  example,  sometimes  a  carload 
of  citrus  fruit  will  be  shipped  from  California  to  Chicago.  It  goes 
there  and  it  encounters  a  market  that  everybody  else  has  rushed  into 
at  the  same  time,  and  they  glut  the  market  for  a  few  days,  and  the 
price  falls,  and  the  oranges  may  be  thrown  into  the  lake  for  lack  of 
a  place  to  store  them,  and  because  there  is  no  sale  for  them.  The 
same  is  true  of  other  fruits  that  are  perishable.  There  are  other 
fruits  that  are  more  perishable  than  oranges,  but  that  happens  some- 
times to  them.  Now,  an  agent  that  profitable  skillful,  will  keep  in 
touch  with  the  market,  and  if  a  carload  of  oranges  is  shipped  into 
Chicago  and  he  finds  that  the  market  is  bad  there  he  can  divert  that 
car  to  some  other  market  that  is  not  glutted  and  avoid  that  condi- 
tion. Where  one  market  is  glutted,  he  will  throw  the  shipment  to 
another  market  where  conditions  are  better.  Now,  without  any 
cooperation  as  to  what  they  are  doing,  it  frequently  occurs  with  all 
kinds  of  perishable  products,  vegetables,  and  perishable  fruits,  that 
the  market  is  glutted. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Hood  River  apple  growers  keep  a  representa- 
tive in  New  York  continuously  all  during  the  apple  season,  just  for 
that  purpose. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  wanted  to  bring  that  out.  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr. 
Davis  this  question,  if  I  may?  Do  you  think  that  in  the  purchase  of 
this  live  stock  and  this  marketing  and  distribution  to  the  dfferent 
projects  you  could  combine  the  duties  of  the  agricultural  instructor 
and  the  buyer  of  live  stock  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  In  some  cases.     It  would  depend  on  the  individual. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  441 

Mr.  WHITE.  You  know  what  wonderful  genius  and  skill  it  takes — 
you  know  it  takes  a  man  almost  a  lifetime  to  learn  the  stock  business, 
to  be  a  good  judge  of  the  different  kinds  of  stock. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  absolutely  true ;  but  the  man  who  has  acquired 
that  genius,  I  might  say,  or  that  high  degree  of  skill,  might  also  be 
a  good  agricultural  developer,  and  for  a  small  colony  the  same  man 
might  possibly  fill  the  two  functions.  It  is  mainly  a  question  of  the 
individual.  On  a  large  colony,  of  course,  he  could  not  do  it,  because 
there  would  be  top  much  for  him  to  do,  but  in  a  small  one  that  might 
possibly  be  done  in  some  cases. 

Now,  the  advantages  of  cooperation  in  construction  and  prepara- 
tion, in  education  and  in  marketing,  are  the  advantages  of  coopera- 
tion on  that  side.  On  the  other  side  is  this  point :  We  can  buy  tracts 
of  land  at  $4,  or  $5,  or  $6,  or  $8,  or  $10  an  acre  in  50,000-acre  tracts, 
and  there  are  some  localities  where  I  believe  this  can  be  done,  where 
a  tract,  say,  40,000  acres  can  be  purchased  in  a  holding  that  is  five  or 
ten  times  that  large  and  purchased  at  a  very  low  price  because  of  the 
advantage  there  would  be  to  the  landholders  to  have  their  adjacent 
land  increased  in  value,  and  it  is  the  purpose  of  the  department,  if 
this  is  done,  if  this  bill  goes  through,  to  exercise  every  possible  influ- 
ence and  pressure  to  obtain  this  land  at  a  reasonable  price  and  pre- 
vent profiteering,  and  such  influence  can  be  used  in  that  way.  Now, 
the  reason  this  land  is  so  cheap  is  because  it  is  somewhat  isolated, 
although  it  may  have,  as  some  of  the  tracts  have,  two  great  trunk- 
line  railroads  built  right  through  them.  There  are  practically  no 
settlements  there,  and  by  putting  a  settlement  of  one  or  two  or  three 
or  four  hundred  families  there  wTe  create  a  value  mainly  in  that  tract 
itself,  and  these  soldiers  get  the  advantage.  There  we  have  by  this 
arrangement  provided  that  the  increase  of  values  caused  by  the  pres- 
ence of  the  individual  accrues  to  those  individuals  themselves,  be- 
cause they  themselves  are  the  settlers.  Now,  if  you  go  into  a  settled 
community  and  buy  one  farm  that  individual  either  has  to  take  a  farm 
where  he  has  no  neighbors  and  has  no  community  advantages  or  he 
has  to  pay 'for  that  advantage  in  the  value  of  the  farm;  one  or  the 
other.  In  these  colonies  we  propose  that  all  the  community  advan- 
tages shall  be  put  there  by  the  men  themselves.  They  form  the  com- 
munity, and  the  single  taxer's  dream  of  having  the  value  of  land  that 
attaches  by  reason  of  the  presence  of  the  community  go  to  the  com- 
munity, will  be  accomplished  in  that  way  without  abolishing  title. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Won't  it  cost  as  much  to  build  up  a  community,  to 
build  up  all  of  the  things  that  go  into  a  small  village,  churches, 
schools,  roads,  etc. — won't  as  much  be  distributed  on  the  farms  suffi- 
cient to  pay  that  increment  if  you  went  out  and  bought  an  isolated 
farm  3  miles  from  the  village  in  a  settled  country  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Those  particular  functions  that  you  speak  of  would 
cost  just  as  much,  probably — not  quite  as  much  on  account  of  the 
cooperative  reasons  that  I  have  mentioned.  But  those  things  do 
not  alone  create  value.  It  is  the  presence  of  the  population  that 
creates  value,  and  one  individual  can  only  imperceptibly  affect  values 
by  going  to  the  community  or  leaving  it.  The  things  that  he  does, 
of  course,  do  contribute,  but  those  things  would  themselves  lose 
value  to  the  people  left.  If  all  the  people  left  New  York  on  account 
of  a  pestilence  or  the  presence  of  an  enemy,  anything  like  that,  not 


442  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

only  the  land  would  be  without  value  but  the  improvements  would 
be  almost  without  value. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Has  your  department  made  any  special  investigation 
on  anv  special  project  that  they  would  be  ready  to  start  this  on  at  the 
present  time? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  We  have  made  investigations  in  the  West  to  a  point 
where  we  are  ready  to  begin  work,  but  the  law  at  the  present  time, 
up  to  the  present  time,  has  not  been  such  that  we  could  carry  them 
to  that  point  of  completion  in  the  East.  We  have  not  had  the  au- 
thority. 

Mr.  SMELL.  How  many  projects  have  you  that  you  are  all  ready  to 
start  work  on,  provided  this  should  become  a  law  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  could  not  answer  that  offhand.  I  should  say  that  we 
could,  within  a  few  months,  start  work  on  not  less  than  a  dozen 
projects,  and  probably  could  double  that  within  a  year.  I  don't 
think  there  are  any  that  we  could  start  right  away  on.  We  would 
have  to  buy  rights  of  way  and  would  have  to  make  contracts,  adver- 
tise for  bids,  and  make  some  detailed  investigations,  perhaps,  in 
any  case.  But  in  some  cases  we  would  be  able  to  begin  work  within 
a  few  months. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Would  this  be  a  proper  question  to  ask  now :  Where 
the  most  feasible  one  is — the  first  one :? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  could  not  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  SNELL.  I  didn't  know  whether  that  was  a  proper  question. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  couldn't  answer  that. 

Mr.  VAILE.  In  that  connection,  Mr.  Director,  some  gentlemen 
seem  to  be  infected  with  the  fear  that  this  plan  of  this  soldier  set- 
tlement bill  is  to  develop  large  reclamation  projects  in  the  West 
and  South  to  the  exclusion  of  other  parts  of  the  country.  That 
is  the  statement,  but  do  you  have  in  mind  any  territory  in  the  eastern 
part  of  the  country  or  the  northeastern  part  of  the  country  where 
these  plans  could  be  carried  out — where  this  plan  contemplated  by 
this  bill  could  be  carried  out? 

^  Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir ;  there  are  many  of  them  in  New  England, 
New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  Delaware,  and  New  Jersey  that 
we  know  of. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Are  there  any  of  them  in  the  Mississippi 
Valley? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  There  are  large  areas  of  undeveloped  lands  in  the 
Mississippi  Valley.  You  mean  the  valley  in  Illinois  and  Iowa? 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Yes. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  am  not  able  to  designate  specific  tracts  in  those 
States,  but  we  know  there  are  about  200,000  acres  in  Illinois  and 
about  400,000  in  Iowa. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Are  there  any  in  Indiana  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  am  informed  there  are.  Our  funds  and  our  time 
have  been  so  meager  that  we  have  not  been  able  to  get  around  over- 
all the  country  and  we  have  not  covered  those  States  thoroughly  at 
all,  but  two  of  my  associates,  Dr.  Mead  and  Mr.  Cory,  have  assured 
me  that  colonies  of  this  kind  can  be  established  in  Indiana,  and  they 
are  both  Indiana  men  and  I  think  they  know. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Now,  still  further  along  the  same  line,  would  the  de- 
velopment of  lands  in  the  central  part  of  the  country  or  the  East, 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  443 

by  fertilizing  them,  be  analogous,  in  your  judgment,  to  the  ex- 
penditure of  similar  amounts  for  irrigation  of  western  lands? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir.  Reclamation,  as  used  by  this  bill,  I  inter- 
pret to  be  irrigation  of  arid  lands,  drainage  of  wet  lands,  or  their 
protection  by  diking,  the  clearing  and  leveling  of  cut-over  lands, 
the  application  of  lime  instead  of  water,  if  that  is  the  thing  to  do ; 
the  application  of  phosphates,  if  that  is  what  the  land  needs;  the 
application  of  nitrates,  if  that  is  what  the  land  needs — and,  in  fact, 
most  land  will  need  two  or  more  kinds  of  treatment  out  of  that  list 
of  methods  of  reclamation.  Practically  all  of  the  western  lands  need 
not  only  irrigation  but  the  addition  of  nitrates.  Nearly  all  of  the 
eastern  lands,  so  far  as  it  is  not  in  limestone  regions,  need  the  addi- 
tion of  lime,  and  much  of  it  needs  the  addition  of  phosphates.  Some 
of  it  needs  water  taken  off  and  some  does  not,  and  even  the  land  that 
is  to  be  cleared  of  stumps,  much  of  that  needs  drainage  also. 

Mr.  VAILE.  I  merely  wanted  to  bring  out  the  point  that  the  term 
"  reclamation  "  does  not  apply  solely  to  the  irrigation  of  arid  lands. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Not  by  any  means.  There  are  large  areas  that  I  have 
seen  myself  that  looked  feasible  to  me  for  reclamation  in  the  States 
of  Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire.  Some  of  these  areas  need 
some  leveling,  and  some  of  them  need  drainage,  and  some  need 
clearing  of  brush  and  stumps. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Would  the  provisions  of  this  bill  authorize  the  de- 
partment to  take  over,  say,  50,000  or  75,000  acres  of  developed  agri- 
cultural land  to-day  and  subdivide  this  land  for  farms  for  soldiers, 
which  did  not  meet  either  of  the  three  conditions  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  So  far  as  the  wording  of  the  bill  is  concerned,  it  would. 
I  think  there  would  be  few  cases  of  that  kind,  such  as  you  have 
mentioned,  because  where  land  is  properly  developed  it  is  generally 
ver}*"  high  priced. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  You  instanced  one  case  in  New  York,  Mr.  Davis, 
when  you  were  here  before. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir.  Neglected  land  that  needs  drainage,  phos- 
phates, most  of  it,  and  nitrogen,  all  of  it — that  land  needs  reclama- 
tion, in  my  judgment. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Under  the  provisions  of  this  bill  the  department  would 
not  be  prohibited  from  taking  a  tract  or  tracts  which  would  aggre- 
gate 75  or  100  thousand  acres  of  good  farm  land? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  dividing  it  up  into  tracts  of  20  to  100  acres,  and 
improving  it  in  the  way  of  fencing  and  putting  houses  on  it,  and 
then  throwing  it  open  for  settlement  by  soldiers. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  There  are  instances  that  I  know  of  in  the  Middle  States 
where  there  are  large  areas  held  by  landlords,  alien  or  otherwise,  and 
farmed  by  tenants.  Those  lands'  are  generally  going  down  in  fer- 
tility as  the  result  of  tenant  farming. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Is  that  true  of  Kansas  or  Nebraska,  do  you 
know  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  To  some  extent  it  is,  and  I  know  it  is  true  in  Illinois. 
That  is  my  State. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  You  mean  there  are  projects  in  Illinois? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Well,  I  don't  know  how  reasonably  these  lands  can  be 
purchased.  I  am  simply  instancing  that  as  a  class  of  development 


444  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

which  might  be  carried  out  if  it  can  be  done  within  feasible  limits  of 
cost. 

Mr.  BAKER.  Mr.  Director,  are  you  familiar  with  the  Irish  adjust- 
ment of  their  lands  over  there  within  the  last  10  years  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  can  not  say  that  I  am  familiar  with  it.  I  know  some- 
thing of  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  there  any  way  that  you  could  get  just  the  pro- 
visions of  what  was  done,  and  how  they  are  doing  it,  the  manner  in 
which  the  English  Government  bought  the  land  where  these  people 
took  land,  so  that  you  can  put  that  in  the  record? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  so.  I  am  not  sure  that  I  have  it  in  raj  office, 
but  I  think  I  can  get  it  from  the  Australian  commission  that  went 
over  there.  They  examined  that  and  published  a  report  on  the  sub- 
ject. Probably  that  is  obtainable. 


In  England  by  the  small  holdings  act  of  1907  county  councils  are  authorized 
to  purchase  or  condemn  large  estates  and  subdivide  them  into  small  tracts  to 
be  sold.  The  purchaser  pays  one-fifth  down  and  the  balance  is  spread  over  a 
term  of  50  years.  The  money  to  buy  the  land  and  subdivide  is  loaned  by  the 
public  works  land  commissioners  at  3i  per  cent.  The  average  cost  of  land 
acquired  under  this  act  was  less  than  $100  per  acre.  The  cost  of  preparing 
them  for  sale  to  small  holders  has  averaged  $10  per  acre.  During  190S  and 
1909  60,889  acres  were  acquired  under  the  act.  Of  this  area.  34.234  acres  were 
sold  in  small  holdings  and  26,655  acres  were  leased. 

IRELAND. 

The  estates  commission  and  the  congested  districts  board  are  commissions 
nominated  by  the  Government  and  have  for  their  object  the  division  and  sale1 
of  estates.  The  procedure  is  as  follows :  A  large  estate  is  put  up  for  sale  and 
appraised.  If  the  price  asked  by  the  owner  is  satisfactory  the  estate  is  pur- 
chased and  the  owner  is  paid  in  Government  land  script,  or  stock  bearing  3  per 
cent  interest.  Estates  sold  under  compulsion  the  Government  must  pay  in  cash. 
The  estate  is  then  divided  into  tracts  of  25  to  30  acres,  line  walls  are  built  if 
necessary,  a  house  is  constructed  at  a  cost  of  about  $1,000,  and  the  place  is 
sold  to  a  tenant.  The  land  is  sold  to  the  small  holders  at  a  price  not  to  exceed 
the  purchase  price.  Frequently  it  is  sold  for  less.  The  small  holder  pays  3  per 
cent  interest  at  present  on  the  purchase  price  and  i  per  cent  amortization, 
payable  in  semi-annual  installments.  This  rate  amortizes  the  debt  in  about 
62  years.  The  purchaser  is  given  a  title  to  the  land,  pays  the  taxes  on  it,  and 
may  transfer  his  equity  at  any  time  if  he  chooses. 

The  local  authorities  (county  councils,  etc.)  may  advance  money  for  the 
purchase  of  the  property  which  a  tenant  occupies  to  the  extent  of  four-fifths 
of  the  purchase  price,  a  limit  of  $1,600  being  placed  on  the  loan.  The  amount 
so  advanced  must  be  repaid  within  30  years.  Installments  of  such  repay- 
ments are  of  equal  amounts  and  may  be  weekly,  monthly,  or  semiannual.  The 
installments  are  inclusive  of  interest,  the  rate  of  which  varies  according  to 
the  rate  at  which  the  money  is  borrowed  for  the  purpose  by  the  local  govern- 
ment, and  the  only  charge  for  the  service  in  10  shillings  in  addition  to  the 
interest. 

SCOTLAND. 

The  same  law  applies  to  Scotland  with  only  minor  modifications.  The  small 
holdings  act  is  proving  a  great  success  in  promoting  intensive  cultivation, 
dairying,  stock  raising,  etc. 

Mr.  VAILJE.  Mr.  Davis,  one  further  question ;  several  witnesses  who 
have  appeared  before  this  committee  seemed  to  have  the  idea  that 
there  is  something  inherently  wrong  or  fallacious  in  combining  the 
two  ideas  of  benefit  for  the  soldier  and  reclamation.  They  seemed 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  445 

to  think  there  was  something  inconsistent  in  those  two  ideas.  Do  you 
care  to  make  any  comment  on  that  proposition  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  bill  and  the  advocates  of  this  bill  frankly  combine 
the  two  things,  because  they  are  by  no  means  inconsistent.  They 
are  almost  necessarily  hitched  together.  If  we  are  going  to  over- 
come the  crowding  of  the  cities  at  all,  which  is  practically  the  same 
proposition,  it  means  some  further  rural  development.  The  settle- 
ment of  soldiers  upon  new  lands  may  be  and  probably  will  be  more 
beneficial  to  them  than  settlement  on  older  lands,  unless  the  older 
lands  are  built  up  to  the  condition  that  the  new  lands  are  in  the 
state  of  nature.  Most  people  know  that  old  lands  were  at  one  time, 
when  they  were  new  lands,  in  better  shape  than  they  are  now,  more 
productive.  That  is  true  in  New  England  lands;  it  is  true  of  New 
York  lands,  and  it  is  true  of  practically  all  of  the  lands  of  the  coun- 
try, except  the  swamp  lands  themselves,  and  even  they  need  the  addi- 
tion nearly  always  of  lime. 

But  farming  the  land  takes  plant  food  out  of  the  land,  out  of  the 
ground,  and  if  you  don't  put  something  back,  the  land  is  bound  to 
deteriorate,  and  in  the  West,  one  of  the  advantages  of  irrigation 
farming  is  that  those  lands  have  not  been  leached  by  centuries  and 
centuries  of  excessive  rainfall,  which  percolates  through  and  carries 
away  the  soluble  plant  food,  and  for  that  reason  in  mineral  plant 
food  the  arid  lands  are  richer  than  the  humid  lands,  almost  univer- 
sally, unless  the  humid  lands  are  undrained.  Now,  leaching  in- 
volves the  draining  away  of  soluble  elements,  and,  of  course,  if  you 
have  swamp  lands  where  those  elements  can  not  drain  out,  they  don't 
get  away  as  they  do  in  the  uplands,  but  for  that  reason  there  is  more 
mineral-plant  food  in  most  of  the  arid  land  than  there  is  in  the 
humid  land.  For  the  same  reason,  the  presence  of  moisture,  more 
vegetation  has  grown  in  the  East,  and  the  eastern  lands  are  not  so 
likely  to  be  deficient  in  humus  or  nitrogen  as  the  western  lands,  which 
are  almost  universally  deficient  in  humus,  which  must  be  put  in  there. 
But  nearly  all  of  the  lands  of  the  country  will  stand  the  addition 
of  phosphates,  and  we  have  an  abundance  of  phosphates  in  the  Caro- 
linas,  in  Florida,  in  Utah,  and  Idaho,  and  various  parts  of  the  coun- 
try. We  have  a  majority  of  the  phosphates  of  the  world,  I  believe, 
right  in  the  United  States,  and  there  is  another  element  of  possible 
cooperation  in  the  selection,  the  preparation,  the  shipping,  and  the 
application  of  lime  and  phosphates  to  the  lands.  That  is  extensively 
needed.  The  individual  can't  do  that  to  nearly  as  good  an  advan- 
tage as  it  can  be  done  in  large  tracts. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  have  heard  it  stated  by  a  great  many  farmers  in 
Iowa,  where  I  was  raised,  and  where  1  have  passed  through  fre- 
quently, that  by  a  system  of  rotation  and  soiling  they  have  made 
their  lands  more  productive  than  they  were  originally.  What  do 
you  know  about  that? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  can  be  done. 

Mr.  WHITE.  The  application  of  these  progressive  methods  that  are 
now  in  use  by  the  Iowa  farmers  would  be  highly  beneficial,  would 
they  not,  all  over  the  country? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Wouldn't  the  soil  generally  respond  to  that? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Those  methods  have  not  been  very  generally  applied  in 
Iowa.  They  are  beginning  it  and  a  few  people  have  done  it. 


446  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  WHITE.  You  mean  in  the  country  generally  or  in  Iowa,  you 
say? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  In  Iowa. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  thought  it  had  been  brought  to  a  very  high  stage 
there. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  reason  I  speak  so  positively  is  that  one  of  my  asso- 
ciates, who  in  fact  had  charge  of  all  the  investigations  in  the  north- 
ern States  under  me,  Mr.  Hanna  is  an  Iowa  farmer,  brought  up  on 
a  farm  and  he  still  runs  an  Iowa  farm  and  has  a  very  fine  herd  of 
short  horns,  and  I  hope  we  will  have  his  services — he  has  just  com- 
pleted his  report  and  I  have  it  here.  I  hope  we  will  have  his  services 
in  carrying  out  this  law  if  it  passes.  He  tells  me  they  are  beginning, 
that  a  few  farmers  have  used  these  up-to-date  methods. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  think  in  my  locality,  if  you  will  pardon  me,  Mr. 
Director,  that  they  have  pursued  the  system  to  a  very  high  degree 
of  success. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Doubtless  there  is  a  difference  in  different  parts  of  the 
State. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Mr.  Davis,  have  you  any  statistics  that  tell  what  pro- 
portion of  the  farm  lands  of  the  country  are  occupied  by  what  we 
call  "  tenant  farmers  "  at  the  present  time  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  haven't  got  that  in  mind.  I  know  that  tenant  farm- 
ing is  growing,  as  every  census  has  shown.  I  know  some  communi- 
ties where  the  excess  of  tenants  is  very  great — that  is,  I  have  in  mind 
one  community  where  two-thirds  of  the  land  is  farmed  by  tenants. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Would  you  venture  a  guess  as  to  the  number  of  farms 
in  the  country? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  would  rather  not  from  memory.  According  to  the 
Agricultural  Department  in  1918,  there  were  6,717,000. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  think  the  Agricultural  Department  has  statistics 
on  that. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Do  you  know  what  it  is? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  No;  but  we  are  sending  for  the  Secretary  of  Agri- 
culture, and  I  think  he  can  tell  us. 

Mr.  SNELL.  I  think  that  is  a  good  thing  to  know. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Would  you  care  to  say,  Mr.  Davis,  in  your  opinion, 
what  proportion  of  soldiers,  returning  soldiers,  from  the  city  as 
compared  with  the  country,  might  avail  themselves  of  the  opportuni- 
ties presented  by  this  legislation? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  distribution  of  those  soldiers  is  shown  on  a  list 
that  I  have  here.  We  have  received,  up  to  June  7,  four  days  ago, 
applications  from  57,463  soldiers  on  the  form  that  the  depaVtment 
submitted  for  the  purpose. 

Mr.  SNELL.  What  do  you  mean  by  "  application  "  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  mean  that  signed  questionnaire  (indicating  paper). 

Mr.  SNELL.  They  have  filled  out  that  questionnaire  that  says  on  the 
top  of  it:  "Would  you  like  to  have  a  home  of  your  own?" 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  the  questionnaire. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Does  that  necessarily  mean  that  they  are  going  to  want 
a  farm  ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  would  like  to  see  the  original  of  that  if  you  have 
one? 


HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS.  447 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  first  thousand  of  the  cards  received  was  analyzed, 
and  assuming1  that  that  is  representative  of  the  whole,  we  have  of 
that  thousand  442  whose  occupation  was  farming. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Previous  to  the  war  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir.  Five  hundred  and  fifty-eight  who  were  not; 
and  of  the  thousand,  884  had  had  some  farming  experience,  had  been 
raised  on  a  farm  or  worked  on  a  farm,  or  something  of  that  kind. 
That  is  the  best  statistics  we  have  on  it.  We  have  been  so  over- 
whelmed by  these — I  spoke  of  their  being  57,000  who  have  returned 
this  questionnaire  with  their  signature  attached,  giving  their  de- 
sire. That  was  the  correct  number  four  days  ago.  The  day  follow- 
ing when  this  was  made  up  we  received  about  1,100.  I  think  the 
number  is  doubtless  now  over  60,000.  Besides  that,  there  have  been 
over  12,000  individual  and  written  letters  received,  written  at  the 
soldier's  own  initiative.  We  don't  count  them  because  it  contains 
inaiiv  duplicates.  We  would  be  duplicating  if  we  did,  and  we  don't 
know  how  many  there  are.  We  have  not  run  it  down  to  find  out  how 
many — probably  half  of  those  people  are  people  who  have  seen  this 
questionnaire,  but  a  large  number  heard  about  it  indirectly  and  have 
written  about  it. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Mr.  Davis,  if  you  had  sent  out  a  statement  reading 
something  like  this  in  the  heading,  sent  them  out  to  250,000  soldiers : 
"Do  you  want  $5,000?"  and  then  show  up  in  your  questions  how 
it  would  be  possible  for  them  to  get  that  $5,000,  how  many  answers  to 
your  communication  would  you  probably  get? 

Mr.  VAILE.  That  would  be  unanimous. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  depends  on  how  easy  it  would  be  to  get.  If  they 
had  to  earn  it,  probably  we  wouldn't  have  very  many — not  many 
more  than  we  got  by  the  other.  If  it  would  be  given  to  them,  prob- 
ably a  large  number  would  have  been  obtained. 

Mr.  HERSMAX.  Can  I  ask  you  a  question  there?  Provided  this 
law  goes  into  effect,  how  soon  could  you  get  these  soldiers  to  work, 
or  offer  them  an  opportunity  to  get  to  work,  say,  the  50,000  soldiers 
that  you  have  applications  from?  That  is  one-quarter  or  one-fifth 
of  what  you  have  sent  out  questionnaires  to.  Now,  how  soon  could 
you  give  these  50,000  soldiers  an  opportunity  to  really  get  to  work 
on  one  of  these  projects,  or  a  number  of  these  projects? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  As  near  as  I  can  answer  that  question,  I  would  say 
within  a  few  weeks. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Fifty  thousand  within  a  few  weeks  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SNELL.  I  thought  you  said  a  few  minutes  ago  that  it  would 
be  three  or  four  months  before  you  could  get  ready  to  start  to  work 
on  one  of  these  projects. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Well,  there  is  not  much  difference. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Three  or  four  months  as  against  two  or  three  weeks. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No;  I  said  a  few  weeks. 

Mr.  SNELL.  Well,  I  misunderstood  you. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  would  better  say  a  few  months. 

Mr  WHITE.  Do  you  have  a  force  of  men  in  the  present  personnel 
of  the  department  who  are  qualified  to  take  over  some  ( 
projects  at  the  present  time? 

133319—19 29 


448  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir ;  we  have  an  organization  now  operating  and 
continuing  construction  on  22  projects  in  the  West.  They  are  dis- 
tributed in  15  different  States,  and  among  those  men  are  a  large 
number  who  are  competent  for  promotion,  the  principal  men  in  the 
service — take  half  a  dozen  of  the  higher  men  in  the  service  have  a 
large  acquainance  of  men  whose  qualifications  they  know,  whom  they 
would  know  where  to  place  to  make  successes  of  them,  and  that  is 
one  of  the  most  difficult  things,  of  course,  to  accomplish. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Could  they  be  spared  from  their  present  work  in 
sufficient  numbers  without  impairing  the  service  of  the  department, 
do  you  think? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Not  in  sufficient  numbers.  It  will  be  necessary,  of 
course,  to  employ  a  great  many  new  men. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  A  great  many  of  these  men  returning  from 
the  Army,  these  engineers,  would  be  available,  too. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Many  of  them;  yes,  sir.  Some  of  them  who  left  our 
service. 

On  the  point  of  the  ease  of  obtaining  this,  the  impression  has  gone 
out  that  some  people  think  that  the  soldier  has  been  led  to  believe 
that  he  is  going  to  be  given  a  farm,  and  I  have  heard  quotations  made 
of  the  title :  "  Do  You  Want  a  Home  on  a  Farm  ?  "  But  in  that  ques- 
tionnaire it  contains  this  question : 

Does  the  Government  give  me  this  farm  for  nothing? 

The  answer  is: 

No;  and  you  would  not  want  the  Government  to  do  it.  The  plan  is  to 
arrange  for  you  to  pay  for  your  farm  home  in  small  payments  over  a  long 
term  of  years,  with  interest  charges  at  the  rate  of  4  per  cent  per  annum. 

How  about  the  stock  and  farm  implements? 

Answer.  It  is  planned  that  the  Government  will  also  furnish  you  with  the 
necessary  stock  and  farm  implements,  to  be  paid  for  by  you  in  small  payments 
spread  over  several  years. 

Where  will  I  get  the  money  to  make  these  small  payments? 

Answer.  You  should  be  able  to  save  the  amount  of  the  first  payment  out  of 
your  wages  while  working  for  the  Government  helping  to  build  these  settle- 
ments. The  balance  you  should  be  able  to  pay  from  the  proceeds  from  the  sale 
of  your  crops. 

That  is  the  plan  that  has  been  set  forth,  and  the  number  of  people 
that  I  have  stated  are  those  who  have  stated  they  desire  to  take 
advantage  of  this.  They  have  not  any  of  them  bound  themselves  to 
anything. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Davis,  about  that  "  Hey,  there  "  poster  that 
was  sent  out,  do  you  remember  during  the  war  there  was  published 
all  over  the  country  a  picture  of  Uncle  Sam  and  he  was  pointing  at 
every  man  and  saying,  "  Hey,  there ;  Uncle  Sam  needs  you  ?  " 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  heard  any  sneers  about  that  "  Hey, 
there  "  on  that  picture  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No,  sir.  And  this  word  "  Hey,  there  "  is  quoted  from 
that  same  poster. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Mr.  Davis,  could  I  ask  you  one  more  question? 
Assuming  that  you  will  have  applications  enough,  and  that  this  law 
becomes  effective,  how  many  soldiers  could  you  take  care  of,  working 
on  these  different  reclamation  schemes  within  a  year?  How  many 
soldiers  would  it  be  possible  to  utilize  ? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  449 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  a  very  difficult  question  to  answer.  I  have 
made  some  estimates  of  the  number  that  can  be  employed  with  a 
certain  investment.  The  experience  of  the  Reclamation"  Service  in 
the  last  16  years  in  which  it  has  been  operating  indicates  that  for 
an  annual  expenditure  of  $1,400  we  have  employed  an  average  of 
one  man — that  is,  we  have  had  a  man  constantly  employed  on  the 
average  for  each  $1,400  spent  annually.  Now  prices  are  a  great  deal 
higher.  We  can't  do  that  any  more,  and  how  much  higher  they  will 
be  when  this  work  is  started  we  can  only  conjecture.  But  on  that 
basis — I  mean  on  that  principle — reasoning  from  the  same  point.  I 
should  think  it  would  take  $2.000  or  $2,500  as  the  divisor;  divide 
that  into  the  total  appropriation  and  the  quotient  would  be  the 
number  of  men  to  be  employed.  That  is  by  and  large  on  the  average. 

Mr.  BEXIIAM.  On  the  basis  of  $2,000  or  $2,500  a  year  for  each  agri- 
cultural worker,  what  would  probably  be  the  price  of  wheat  to  the 
consumer  ? 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  He  don't  mean  that  that  is  the  wage. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  mean  in  the  construction  of  reclamation  work. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  understand  that,  but  that  must  be  paid  by  the 
man — by  the  men  who  are  on  the  farms,  and  you  are  setting  a  price  in 
a  given  community  for  farm  work  when  you  pay  a  certain  price  in 
that  community  for  reclamation  service,  are  you  not? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Well,  the  nearest  answer  I  can  give  you  to  that,  Mr. 
Benham,  is  to  cite  you  to  the  price  of  wheat  when  the  rate  was  $1,400 
to  the  individual.  Compare  that  to  the  $2,000  or  $2,500  and  you 
would  have  that  much  higher  price  of  wheat — probably  from  50  to  75 
per  cent  higher  price  than  the  average  of  the  last  15  years. 

Mr.  BEX  HAM.  Could  you  assume  now  that  $1,400  is  the  price  of 
agricultural  labor  the  country  over? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Absolutely  not.  I  made  no  statement  that  could  be 
tortured  into  that.  My  figure  includes  right  of  way,  purchase  of 
machinery,  payment  to  contractors  for  building  big  dams,  and  has 
only  a  very  distant  and  remote  relation  to  the  price  of  wheat.  It  is 
not'the  price  of  agricultural  products  at  all ;  it  is  the  amount  of  money 
required  to  employ  certain  men  on  reclamation  work.  That  was  given 
in  answer  to  the  question  how  many  men  could  you  employ,  and  the 
answer  depends  upon  the  size  of  the  appropriation. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  Mr.  Davis.  I  think  you  had  better  explain  that  very 
fully.  You  mean  that  one  man  is  apportioned  to  each  $2,000  or  $2,500 
of  application  of  this  appropriation  to  work? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  Including  construction  of  every  kind,  employment  of 
labor,  purchase  of  material,  and  everything  that  goes  into  every  item 
of  expenditure  under  this  appropriation,  divided  into  units  of  $2,500 
each  will  enable  you  to  employ  that  many  men  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  It  has  no  relationship  whatever  to  the  price  paid  to 
each  individual  laborer. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Absolutely  not. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  That  might  be  $800  or  $900  a  year,  or  something  else; 
so  I  think  that  should  be  made  very  clear;  otherwise  you  will  have 
mistakes  about  it. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir.    Your  statement  is  correct. 


450  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Davis,  when  you  testified  the  other  day  you 
said  you  would  divide  the  country  up  into  three  districts. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  said  I  had  done  so  in  this  investigation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  States  comprised  districts  1,  2,  and  3? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  western  district  as  now  divided  comprises  the 
States  that  are  enumerated  in  the  reclamation  law,  17  States,  lying, 
in  a  general  way.  west  of  the  Missouri  River.  The  southern  district 
comprises  the  States  lying  south  of  the  Ohio  River,  not  including 
Missouri,  which  is  attached  to  the  northern  district,  but  including 
Maryland  and  Delaware,  which  were  attached  to  the  southern  dis- 
trict. What  the  organization  will  be  when  an  appropriation  is 
passed,  of  course.  I  can't  predict.  It  may  differ  somewhat,  but  the 
idea  that  I  had  was  to  report  to  the  committee  what  had  been  done 
in  the  way  of  organization. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  That  was  in  the  expenditure — that  investigation  that 
Congress  authorized  you  to  make? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  $100,000;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Mr.  Davis,  suppose  you  start  off  with  three  proj- 
ects— this  question  is  suggested  by  one  that  Mr.  Hersman  asked — 
and  the  bill  provides  that  a  soldier  who  works  on  a  project  should 
be  given  a  preference — now  suppose  you  locate  your  first  three  proj- 
ects, for  instance,  one  in  Louisiana,  one  in  Indiana,  and  one  in 
Arizona.  Now  there  is  a  man  in  New  York  State  wrho  wants  a  farm 
on  one  of  these  projects,  but  you  are  not  ready  to  start  work  up 
there,  but  he  is  willing  to  go  to  work,  and  suppose  he  should  go 
and  work  on  the  Arizona  project;  then  after  the  New  York  State 
project  is  started  and  carried  through  to  completion  and  ready  for 
settlement,  could  the  New  York  man  exercise  his  preference  on  the 
New  York  project,  or  would  he  be  confined  to  the  project  which  he 
had  worked  on? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  He  could  exercise  it  wherever  he  chose,  undoubtedly, 
under  this  bill.  There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind  on  that  point. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  That  would  be  subject  to  the  preference  of  the  indi- 
vidual workers  on  a  particular  project  to  have  the  first  call  on  the 
units  in  that  project  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  a  detail  that  could  be  controlled  by  regulation. 
I  would  say  that  it  would  be  proper  and  fair  to  allow  a  man  to  ex- 
ercise his  option  wherever  he  chooses.  If  he  goes  to  one  that  is  par- 
ticularly popular,  he  takes  his  chances  with  a  larger  number,  and  of 
coruse  he  hasn't  got  as  good  a  chance  to  get  a  farm. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  I  understood  it  was  entirely  a  matter  of  administra- 
tion, but  I  wanted  to  get  your  idea  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  it  i's  entirely  a  matter  of  administration,  but 
offhand,  that  would  look  fairer  to  me. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Davis,  do  you  travel  around  much  investigat- 
ing these  projects,  and  if  so,  what  was  the  sentiment  you  found  and 
what  experiences  did  you  have  with  public  sentiment? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  traveled  around  to  some  exten,  and  met  but  little  op- 
There  was  an  interesting  occurrence  in  New  England.  Dr.  El- 
wood  Mead.  Mr.  Hanna,  and  I  visited  Boston  on  the  invitation  of  a 
committee  that  has  boon  appointed  for  New  England,  and  there  in- 
spected several  tracts  of  land  that  were  suggested  for  soldier  settle- 
ments, and  the  committee  made  an  appointment  for  us  to  meet  the 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  451 

leading  men  in  the  city  of  Springfield.  We  went  to  the  city  of 
Springfield  and  met  with  about  20  of  the  leading  men  of  that  vicin- 
ity, mostly  members  of  the  chamber  of  commerce  and  other  promi- 
nent men,  and  when  we  explained  the  purpose  of  our  visit,  the  chair- 
man suggested  to  his  companions: 

This  is  a  very  important  matter  and  this  meeting  is  not  sufficiently  representa- 
tive to  give  it  proper  consideration,  and  I  suggest  that  we  urge  these  gentle- 
men to  come  back  sometime  in  the  future  when  we  can  have  a  representative 
New  England  meeting  and  thrash  this  thing  all  out. 

After  some  parley,  we  finally  agreed  upon  a  date  in  the  month  of 
January.  Unexpectedly  Dr.  Mead  was  called  back  to  California 
and  Mr.  Hanna  and  I  went  to  Springfield  to  meet  these  people.  I  got 
there  the  day  of  the  meeting.  They  had  taken  care  to  have  a  very 
representative  meeting,  inviting  all  the  State  granges,  the  com- 
missioners of  agriculture,  and  the  leading  manufacturers  and  the 
leading  journalists  of  the  State,  and  they  had  a  meeting  of  about 
70  people  or  more.  They  met  the  day  before  our  arrival.  We  arrived 
on  time,  but  they  wanted  to  get  together  and  talk  it  over  themselves 
first,  and  they  did  so. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Whom  do  you  mean  by  "  they  "  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  representatives  of  the  New  England  interests, 
various  people.  And  if  my  information  is  correct,  all  of  the  State 
granges  of  Xew  England  were  represented,  I  think  most  of  them  by 
the  masters  of  the  grange;  and  the  commissioners  of  agriculture 
were  nearly  all  there,  I  think.  There  were  various  journalists  and 
manufacturers  and  the  account  they  gave  me  of  the  meeting  they  had 
the  day  before  we  arrived  was  that  there  was  almost  universal  oppo- 
sition to  this  Lane  plan.  They  thought  it  meant  the  reclamation 
of  two  or  three  hundred  million  acres  of  land  and  the  farming  of  that 
immediately  the  location  of  millions  of  soldiers  thereon,  whether  the 
men  wanted  to  go  on  it  or  not,  and  the  glutting  of  the  market  for 
farm  products,  and  all  of  the  other  things  that  you  have  heard 
charged  here  against  this  bill.  Those  were  all  charged  and  honestly 
believed  there.  The  one  or  two  friends  of  the  movement  present  could 
not  do  more  than  to  beg  them  to  give  a  hearing  on  it,  and  the  men 
who  came  the  next  day  had  denounced  it  almost  universally.  I  occu- 
pied about  three-quarters  of  an  hour  when  the  meeting  was  held  in 
the  City  Hall,  and  had  an  audience  of  over  100  people  and  they  lis- 
tened attentively.  I  explained  the  plan  as  you  have  seen  it  explained 
in  the  literature'  and  as  I  have  explained  it  here  on  the  floor,  and  Mr. 
Hanna  followed,  giving  some  of  his  experiences  and  detailed  obser- 
vations in  his  travels,  making  these  investigations  which  he  had  been 
engaged  on  then  for  about  four  months. 

When  we  got  through  we  were  followed  by,  I  presume,  15  different 
speakers — a  large  number  of  different  speakers,  only  two  of  whom 
opposed  the  plan — one  of  them,  I  think,  was  master  of  the  State 
grange  of  Massachusetts — he  was  at  least  master  of  a  grange,  and  I 
do  not  remember  his  name — he  said  that  he  had  violently  opposed  the 
plan  the  day  before,  but  was  now  in  favor  of  it.  and  that  his  opposi- 
tion was  based  wholly  upon  a  misconception  and  misinformation. 

After  the  meeting  the  chairman,  who  is  the  State  forester.  Mr. 
Rane,  who  was  very  friendly  from  the  first  to  this  project,  told  my 
that  the  tone  of  that  meeting  was  absolutely  opposite  to  what  it  was 


452  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

at  the  meeting  before ;  that  instead  of  there  being  any  commendation, 
as  we  had  received  that  day,  there  had  only  been  opposition  the  day 
before,  and  that  the  situation  was  entirely  revolutionized,  due  to  the 
fact  that  now  they  had  the  information.  The  representatives  of  the 
grange  particularly  flocked  around  Mr.  Hanna  and  me — and  I  think 
all  of  the  granges  were  represented  there — all  those  who  talked  to 
us  privately  told  us  that  their  opposition  was  based  entirely  upon 
misinformation,  and  they  showed  us  the  newspaper  articles  which 
had  misled  them  to  the  effect  that  the  soldier  was  to  be  sent  on  to  a 
farm  without  any  experience;  that  he  was  to  be  sent  there,  whether 
he  wanted  to  go  or  not;  that  a  man  was  to  be  dragged  from  Now 
York  and  sent  into  the  sAvamps  of  the  South,  and  that  it  was  a  scheme 
for  reclaiming  hundreds  of  millions  of  acres  of  land  that  would  be 
thrown  into  competition  with  the  New  England  agriculturists  and 
put  them  into  a  worse  position  than  they  were  at  the  opening  of  the 
homestead  act,  to  which  some  of  them  referred. 

The  tenor  of  that  meeting  was  an  appreciation  of  the  condition  that 
the  agriculture  of  New  England  does  not  supply  more  than  25  per 
cent  of  the  demand  of  New  England  for  agricultural  products,  and 
that  it  is  a  very  serious  handicap  upon  all  the  industries  of  New  Eng- 
land to  have  to  ship  most  of  its  supplies  from  the  far  West  or  from 
Canada.  They  import  milk  from  Canada,  and  they  import  a  good 
deal  of  milk  to  Boston  from  up  and  down  the  coa>t.  both  south  and 
north,  some  from  Maine.  And  their  idea  was  that  the  plan  as  out- 
lined, with  the  appropriation  then  proposed,  which  was  $100,000,- 
000— as  you  will  remember,  $100,000.000  for  the  first  year— and  I 
pointed  out  to  them  that  if  that  appropriation,  the  same  appropria- 
tion, were  kept  up  annually  for  a  period  of  ten  years,  which  would  be 
double  the  amount  provided  in  this  bill,  it  would  not  supply  the  de- 
ficiency in  the  farm  area  that  the  census  from  1900  to  1910  showed. 
That  census  shows  that  the  population  increased  20  per  cent;  the 
number  of  farms  increased  only  11  per  cent,  and  the  cultivated  urea 
increased  only  15  per  cent,  showing  a  shortage  of  5  per  cent  in  agri- 
cultural area.*  Now,  $500,000.000  may  add  4.000.000  acres  to  the  culti- 
vated area,  part  of  which  is  now  partly  cultivated,  of  course,  if  you 
take  some  of  these  partially  developed  areas,  as  we  expect  to  do. 
Now  that  increases  the  cultivated  area  only  about  1£  per  cent :  it 
only  supplies  about  one-third  of  the  lack  of  the  growth  of  asrriculture 
to  keep  pace  with  population.  To  the  extent  that  it  applies,  it  also 
tends  to  overcome  the  rush  to  the  cities  and  to  make  country  life 
more  attractive,  thereby  attracting  people  to  that  line  of  industry. 
But  if  that  is  not  undertaken  in  some  form,  the  tendency  to  city 
congestion  is  growing  right  straight  along,  it  lias  been  throughout 
the  past,  but  the  indications  all  are  that  it  will  go  along  until  the 
cities — congestion  in  the  cities  and  congestion  in  other  occupations, 
where  people  like  to  flock  together — is  going  to  be  such  ns  to  create 
a  great  shortage  of  farm  products.  Some  people  are  alarmed  at  it 
already. 

Mr.  WHITK.  I  would  like  to  ask  you,  Mr.  Director,  if  you  find  any 
strong  sentiment  of  jealousy  anywhere  :unong  <h<«  farmers  against 
this  scheme  on  the  ground  that  'it  might  bring  in  compel  it  ion  with 
their  products? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  have  not.  among  the  farmers  themselves,  found  any 
of  that.  I  have  talked  with  a  great  many  and  I  don't  recall  talking 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  453 

with  any  who  have  expressed  such  an  opinion.  What  I  have  heard 
has  been  from  the  man  who  appeared  before  us  here  representing 
the  grange.  It  seemed  to  me  there  was  such  a  spirit  in  his  talk,  if  I 
may  be  pardoned. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  am  asking  for  information.  I  have  very  pronounced 
views  of  it,  as  far  as  my  own  section  of  the  country  is  concerned.  I 
don't  think  there  is  any  jealousy  among  our  people  at  all.  There  is 
absolute  fraternity,  so  iar  as  they  are  concerned. 

Mr.  .DAVIS.  That  is  the  situation  that  I  find  in  the  West,  and  that  is 
where  I  have  circulated  most  and  am  best  acquainted,  but  I  have 
traveled  through  the  East  to  some  extent,  and  I  want  to  say  this,  that 
my  assistant,  Mr.  Hanna,  who  had  charge  in  the  northern  district, 
and  is,  as  I  say,  himself  a  farmer — all  of  his  belongings  are  invested 
in  farming,  and  he  thoroughly  agrees  with  all  this  reasoning  and 
applied  it  in  his  speech  in  Springfield — he  says  it  is  absolutely  trivial 
and  ridiculous  to  talk  about  upsetting  the  market  for  agricultural 
products. 

The  movement  is  not  large  enough  for  that,  even  if  it  were  feasible 
to  do  it.  It  is  not  large  enough.  And  we  are  starting,  as  I  hope  Con- 
gress will  start,  on  a  basis  that  can  succeed.  There  isn't  anything 
that  I  want  any  more  than  success  for  this  movement,  and  if  it  can 
be  achieved,  if  those  who  are  best  able  to  judge  can  achieve  success 
better  by  firing  me,  that  is  what  I  want  them  to  do.  It  is  not  the 
job  I  want,  but  the  success  of  this  enterprise,  and  that  is  the  reason 
that  I  oppose  the  infiltration  method  of  settlement,  because,  gentle- 
men, that  can  not  succeed.  Neither  can  a  100  per  cent  loan  succeed. 
It  is  not  a  commercial  proposition. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  How  do  you  necessarily  associate  those  two  ideas? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  They  have  usually  been  associated — not  necessarily,  but 
usually  they  have  been.  That  was  the  proposition  of  at  least  two  of 
those  who  favored  that  before  this  committee,  and  I  think  others. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Mr.  Davis,  if  you  will  pardon  another  question :  Don't 
you  believe  that  in  cases  like,  we  will  say — not  a  hypothetical  case, 
but  thousands  of  which  will  exist — a  young  man  has  gone  into  the 
military  service ;  he  is  the  son  of  a  rather  poor  farmer,  who  may  be 
poor  for  a  hundred  different  reasons  which  it  is  not  necessary  to 
catalogue  or  discuss — he  comes  back  with  enlarged  ideas,  enlarged 
ambitions,  and  yet  he  would  like  to  settle  in  his  own  neighborhood. 
Would  you  object  to  the  Secretary  having  the  jurisdiction  in  a.  case 
like  that,  where  the  young  man  was  thoroughly  familiar  with  the 
existing  conditions,  the  quality  of  the  soil,  and  has  had  a  lifetime  of 
experience,  in  order  to  keep  him  out  of  the  city  to  give  the  Secretary 
the  jurisdiction  to,  under  supervision,  settle  him  there,  paying,  say, 
40  per  cent  or  25  per  cent  on  a  limited  investment  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  My  answer  to  that  question  would  be  the  same,  that 
the  Federal  Land  Board  could  give  him  assistance.  There  is  no  ob- 
jection to  the  legislation,  but  it  wants  to  be  thoroughly  understood 
that  it  is  not  our  idea.  We  don't  want  to  be  sponsor  for  its  failure. 

Mr.  WHITE.  That  answers  my  question. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  it  should  be  in  separate  legislation.  If  Con- 
gress desires  to  give  recognition  to  the  soldier  in  any  such  line  as 
that,  of  course,  I  have  no  personal  objection  to  it.  It  is  not,  however, 
and  can  not  be  made,  in  my  opinion,  and  the  opinion  of  those  who 


454  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

have  tried  it — it  can  not  be  made  a  solvent  proposition,  and  so  far  as 
I  am  concerned,  so  far  as  Secretary  Lane  is  concerned,  so  far  as  the 
sponsor  of  this  measure  are  concerned,  they  desire  it  to  be  kept 
purely  and  simply  a  solvent  proposition  that  shall  pay  its  way  so 
far  as  it  is  humanly  feasible  to  make  it  do  so,  and  not  contemplate 
any  special  privilege — I  should  not  use  that  term;  I  mean  any 
gratuity — 

Mr.  MAYS  (interposing).  Gratuity? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  don't  mean  to  contemplate  a  bounty  proposi- 
tion? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Mr.  White  did  not  necessarily  imply  a  bounty  proposi- 
tion ;  he  suggested  a  loan. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes;  I  understand. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Pardon  me,  another  word — I  didn't  intend  to  pursue 
this  subject.  I  wanted  your  position,  I  wanted  to  ask  you  a  ques- 
tion, and  it  is  answered  satisfactorily,  but  I  want  to  make  myself 
clear  on  one  proposition.  My  question  didn't  contemplate  any  gra- 
tuity or  any  bounty.  It  contemplated  safeguarding  the  Government 
absolutely,  and  I  would  not  favor  any  other  proposition.  I  am  not 
here  to  contest  or  combat  the  directors'  views.  I  am  merely  trying  to 
get  an  answer  to  the  question. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  My  idea  is  this:  That  if  such  an  enterprise  is  under- 
taken, it  should  be  in  separate  legislation  and  might  best  be  handled, 
I  think,  in  view  of  their  organization,  by  the  Federal  Farm  Loan 
Board  through  some  provision  by  which  public  funds  could  be  used, 
probably  from  the  sale  of  bonds,  with  a  low  rate  of  interest.  Some 
such  plan  as  that  might  be  carried  out. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Doesn't  the  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board  at  the  pres- 
ent time  take  care  of  those  cases,  not  extending  such  large  credits,  but 
they  take  care  of  exactly  those  kind  of  cases  ? 

Mr.  ELSTON.  They  give  as  high  credit  as  Mr.  White  mentioned — 
as  high  as  50  per  cent. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  The  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board  gives  50  per  cent  on 
the  appraised  value  of  the  land,  and  20  per  cent  on  the  insured  value 
of  the  improvements  on  the  land. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  makes  less  than  50  per  cent  on  the  total. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  That  makes  a  little  less  than  50  per  cent  on  the  total. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Mr.  White  mentioned  25  per  cent  to  40  per  cent. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  And  they  charge  higher  interest  also. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Mr.  Director,  in  reading  this  bill  closely,  don't  you 
find  that  if  the  Secretary  desires  to  exercise  his  discretion,  he  has  that 
power  in  this  bill.  Now,  the  very  one  that  Mr.  White  asked  about  ? 
Doesn't  it  say  so  in  so  many  words,  that  that  power  is  vested  in  him  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  bill  places  no  minimum  on  the  size  of  projects. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  It  does  not. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  have  my  doubts,  though,  about  that. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  did  not  raise  this  question,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  order  to 
discuss  it.  It  can  be  discussed  in  executive  session. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Just  a  moment  there — if  that  meaning  is  intended,  it 
ought  to  be  clarified:  if  it  is  not  intended,  wo  ought  to  have  Mr. 
Da  vis's  view  very  emphatically  on  it.  What  do  you  say  us  to  the  sug- 
gestion of  Mr.  Johnson  ? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  455 

Mr.  DAVIS.  There  is  no  minimum  placed  on  the  size  of  a  project  by 
this  bill,  and  I  think  that  is  wise,  but 

Mr.  FERRIS  (interposing).  Now,  is  it  intended,  then — that  state- 
ment corroborates  Mr.  Johnson's  statement,  and  I  have  had  that  same 
thing  in  mind — then,  is  it  intended  by  this  proposed  legislation  to,  in 
cases  like  the  one  instanced  by  Mr.  White,  to  meet  an  emergency  of 
that  sort? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  not.  I  don't  think  that  any  legal  officer  would 
hold— I  certainly  did  not  hold  that  this  bill  authorizes  the  purchase 
and  settlement  of  a  single  or  even  three  or  four  individuals  in  one 
locality.  It  speaks  of  "  projects  "  and  authorizes  "  projects."  Such 
a  settlement  could  scarcely  be  called  a  project.  Just  where  to  draw 
the  line,  of  course,  will  be  a  matter  of  executive  discretion,  and  the 
holding  would  be,  I  believe,  that  it  would  be  a  matter  of  opinion  as 
to  whether  it  could  be  made  solvent,  for  it  certainly  is  the  intent  of 
this  legislation  that  it  shall  be  solvent;  and  such  small  holdings, 
unless  under  very  exceptional  circumstances,  could  not  be  so  made 
under  the  provisions  of  this  bill.  This  bill  authorizes  very  large 
credits ;  it  authorizes  95  per  cent  credit  on  the  land  and  it  authorizes 
75  per  cent  credit  on  the  improvements  and  60  per  cent  credit  on  per- 
sonal property,  and  that  is  higher  than  any  commercial  organization 
can  carry  on  successfully,  and  it  means  that  in  order  to  be  solvent 
they  must  have  special  advantages  of  some  kind.  One  of  those  I 
have  enumerated  is  the  advantage  of  enjoying  the  difference  in  value 
caused  by  the  community  coming  there.  Their  own  presence  adds 
value  to  that  land  that  it  would  not  otherwise  have,  giving  the  Gov- 
ernment a  wider  margin  and  giving  them  the  social  advantages  that 
they  do  not  have  to  pay  for. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  harm  would  it  do  to  put  in  an  alternative  pro- 
posal, giving  the  Secretary  the  power  in  a  given  State  where  a 
project  plan  was  not  feasible?  I  think  you  will  find  there  are  some 
States  where  there  are  no  feasible  projects. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  There  may  be  States  where  projects  are  not  feasible. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  harm  would  it  do  to  give  the  Secretary  an 
alternative  of  making  loans  along  the  line  of  the  Farm  Loan  Board, 
only  with  greater  liberality  both  as  to  tenure  and  rate,  so  that  you 
would  be  able  to  reach  a  larger  percentage  of  the  soldiers  who  need  it 
and  deserve  the  benefit  from  this? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  You  would  do  that  in  order  to  catch  the  young 
birds,  I  assume.  Mr.  Ferris? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Well,  I  don't  know  what  you  mean  by  that.  I  put  it 
in  because  I  believe  the  soldier  is  entitled  to  it. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Mr.  Davis  already  stated  that  that  would  not  meet 
with  our  approval  and  we  would  not  back  it  up ;  so  why  put  it  in  if 
it  doesn't  mean  anything? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Now,  the  gentleman  from  Indiana  has  no  right  to 
make  any  such  remark  as  that.  I  asked  the  director  a  question,  and 
it  is  a  fair  question,  and  I  may  have  an  answer  to  that,  I  think. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  will  be  glad  to  answer.  My  objection  to  that,  Mr. 
Chairman,  is  this :  If  such  a  paragraph  is  put  in,  it  will  show  that 
it  was  the  intent  of  Congress  to  inaugurate  the  infiltration  method 
that  I  have  described  to  you ;  that  is,  a  method  of  scattering  settlers 
all  over  the  country  and  carrying  it  out  under  this  bill.  Such  a  plan 


456  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

can  not  be  made  solvent  If  that  were  the  intent  of  Congress,  the 
pressure  would  undoubtedly  be  so  great  that  I  don't  believe  any 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  could  resist  making  that  kind  of  settlements 
in  various  spots  in  the  country,  and  it  would  fail.  That  is  the  reason 
I  am  opposed  to  it. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  They  sell  Indian  land,  they  sell  Government  trust 
land,  reserve  land,  in  isolated  tracts,  Mr.  Davis,  and  they  sell  it  on 
.payments,  and  they  sell  it  without  the  colony  proposition,  and  they 
have  settled  great  States — the  West  has  been  settled  in  that  way. 
Homesteaders  have  not  take  up  land  in  colonies;  they  have  taken 
it  up  here  and  there. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  And  a  vast  number  of  them  have  failed. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  True ;  but  you  look  at  the  West  as  a  whole,  and  it  has 
not  failed. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  don't  mean  that  the  country  could  not  be  settled  in 
that  way. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Homes  can  be  acquired  in  that  way,  can  they  not  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Certainly. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  If  homes  are  acquired  in  that  way,  and  the  country 
is  settled  in  that  way,  and  unproductive  areas  are  reduced  to  produc- 
tion in  that  way,  it  is  not  a  failure  in  toto. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Not  in  toto,  but  the  failure  I  refer  to  is  financial  fail- 
ure. The  Government  will  have  a  large  per  cent  of  failures  which 
will  not  be  able  to  pay  the  money  due,  in  my  judgment,  if  that  is 
tried.  Now  just  where  the  line  should  be  drawn  between  the  colony 
that  is  small  and  the  one  that  is  large  enough  to  succeed,  is  a  ques- 
tion that  I  can  not  answer  now,  but  the  men  best  competent  to  answer 
that  question  have  placed  the  minimum  at  100  families. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Your  idea,  Mr.  Davis,  is  that  it  would  not 
be  safe  for  the  Government  to  pay  the  market  value  of  the  farm 
and  put  a  man  on  there  without  any  capital  at  all? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  the  idea;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  From  a  business  standpoint,  it  would  not  be 
feasible. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Now,  I  want  it  distinctly  understood  by  this  commit- 
tee and  by  the  director  that  I  have  never  advanced  a  proposition  of 
any  kind  in  this  committee.  I  brought  out  some  questions  but  by  no 
inference  have  I  ever  suggested  that  I  would  want  the  Government 
to  pay  the  market  price  of  the  land. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  That  is  what  you  would  have  to  pay  in  a 
settled  community. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Well,  that  is  a  question  of  opinion.  I  don't  want 
to  consume  the  time  of  this  committee  in  argument  now,  but  there 
are  millions  of  dollars  worth  of  real  estate  changing  hands  on  time 
every  week  and  every  month  and  every  year. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  At  market  value? 

Mr.  WHITE.  Changing  hands  at  market  values,  but  changing  hands 
on  time. 

Mr.  MAYS.  With  the  interest  charge  added. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Yes.  • 

Mr.  MAYS.  That  is  paying  the  market  value? 

Mr.  WHITE.  Certainly ;  but  I  have  not  even  suggested  that  the 
Government  should  do  it,  but  your  reclamation  scheme  contemplates 
that  very  thing.  I  don't  want  to  argue  the  question. 


HOMfc-S  FOfl  SOL,DIEKt3.  457 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  have  a  question,  Mr.  Benham? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Well,  I  don't  know  that  it  is  valuable,  but  in  private 
conversation  a  short  time  ago  with  Mr.  Davis,  he  told  me  that  the 
reclamation  projects  are,  some  of  them,  carried  out  on  by  direct 
Government  agencies,  and  some  by  private  contract,  or  Government 
contract  with  private  individuals.  Now,  I  do  not  know  what  his 
experience  is,  but  I  felt  like  asking  which  of  those  systems  has  cost 
the  Government  most.  My  observation  in  the  improvements  on  the 
Ohio  and  other  rivers  is  that  the  Government  has  been  more  success- 
ful from  a  financial  standpoint  when  it  could  contract  the  work.  In 
short,  when  private  enterprise  has  done  the  public  work,  it  has  been 
done  at  less  cost  to  the  Government  than  when  the  Government  has 
taken  it  over  directly.  Now,  is,  or,  is  not,  that  true  of  our  reclama- 
tion projects? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  a  question  that  is  difficult  to  answer,  and  is  a 
very  important  question,  and  I  am  glad  to  answer  it,  because  it  is 
one  of  Avhich  we  have  made  a  great  deal  of  investigation.  We  require 
on  all  projects  specific  reports  on  those  things  at  various  periods,  and 
we  publish  the  results  in  our  annual  reports.  An  illustration  that 
I  will  give  right  now  is  one  that  is  to-day  in  progress.  We  are 
doing  drainage  work  in  the  Rio  Grande  Valley  in  New  Mexico. 
We  have  a  number  of  machines  there  that  we  purchased,  and  are 
being  run  by  men  paid  by  the  month,  by  the  Reclamation  Service. 
We  also  advertised — I  think  we  advertised  twice — at  any  rate  we 
made  very  extensive  inquiry  and  advertised  to  let  that  work  by  con- 
tract, and  finally  when  we  found  a  man  who  would  bid.  or  men  who 
would  bid,  we  advertised  and  let  the  contract.  The  work  that  is 
going  on  in  that  valley  now  by  contracts  costs  10^  cents  per  cubic 
yard,  by  measure;  the  work  that  is  being  done  by  the  Government, 
the  monthly  reports  show  costs  between  6  and  7  cents  per  cubic 
yard,  done  on  exactly  the  same  basis.  In  a  public  meeting  in  that 
valley  not  long  ago  one  of  the  water  users  said  this :  "  The  Reclama- 
tion Service  let  a  contract  for  this  drainage  work  to  show  that  they 
can  do  the  work  cheaper  than  the  contractor  could."  Now,  why  not 
admit  it  and  stop  that  contractor  and  get  this  work  done  cheaper? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  That  is  an  isolated  case,  but  is  that  the  general 
experience  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No,  sir;  it  is  not.  I  have  not  finished,  if  you  will 
allow  me  to.  It  is  not  possible  to  exactly  and  positively  answer  your 
question,  for  the  reason  that  the  same  work  can  not  be  done  in  two 
different  ways.  There  is  a  case  where  the  work  is  just  as  nearly  of 
the  same  character  as  any  that  you  could  find,  I  think,  but  we  found 
this  in  two  canals  in  the  same  valley ;  we  did  part  of  it  by  contract 
and  part  of  it  by  force  account,  and  the  force-account  work  was 
cheaper  in  some  cases,  and  in  some  cases  it  turned  out  the  other  way. 
But  the  only  cases  in  which  you  can  best  make  a  comparison  are  these 
where  we  advertise  for  contracts,  get  a  variety  of  bids,  reject  those 
bids,  and  do  the  work  ourselves.  We  do  the  work  that  we  are  doing 
cheaper  than  we  could  have  done  it  by  contract.  That  doesn't  provo 
that  the  contractor  could  have  done  it  for  that  money,  because  many 
of  our  contractors  fail,  but  I  don't  recall  any  case  where  we  have 
advertised  under  sealed  bids  and  afterwards  done  the  work  by  force 
account  that  it  cost  more  than  the  bids.  But  usually  those  bids  are  re- 
jected because  they  are  too  high,  and,  of  course,  that  in  turn  is  not  a 


458  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

very  fair  comparison.  It  is  an  advantage  to  the  Government,  because 
here  is  the  judgment  of  the  men  who  know  most  about  it,  who  say  that 
work  can  be  done  cheaper.  That  doesn't  mean  that  we  can  do  the 
work  cheaper  than  it  would  cost  the  contractor,  necessarily,  and 
the  answer  to  the  question  that  I  understand  you  want  to  bring  out 
is  as  to  what  the  policy  will  be  and  why.  Is  that  not  it? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  That  is  it. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  policy  at  present  is  to  contract  those  things  that 
can  most  advantageously  be  done  by  a  contractor,  such  as  straight- 
away canal  work  that  can  be  very  easily  estimated  and  carried  on  by 
ordinary  methods  and  has  not  much — 

Mr.  BENHAM  (interposing).  Excuse  me  just  a  moment — the  ques- 
tion I  was  trying  to  finally  lead  up  to  is  this :  Will  the  farm  products 
cost  the  farmer,  the  boy  who  is  expected  to  use  it — will  it  cost  him 
more  or  less  than  the  same  proposition  would  cost  him  by  private 
enterprise  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Unless  it  costs  him  less,  it  will  be  mismanagement,  be- 
cause the  Government  is  a  bigger  body,  can  do  it  on  a  large  scale  and 
by  wholesale  and  has  better  credit  than  a  private  party. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Isn't  that  the  actual  experience  of  actual,  concrete 
examples  of  the  past  10  years?  That  is  what  I  wanted  to  get  at. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  is  in  the  [Reclamation  Service;  yes,  sir.  Now,  as  I 
say,  that  applies  only  to  certain  classes  of  work.  It  does  not  apply 
to  all.  We  like  to  have  contractors  that  work  alongside  of  our  men, 
that  will  set  them  a  pace,  for  one  thing,  and  to  keep  tab  and  be  able 
to  answer  just  such  questions  as  you  have  asked.  Those  questions 
are  frequently  asked  and  it  is  very  important  that  we  should  keep  that 
kind  of  a  hold  on  the  work,  and  we  do  that,  'and  where  the  work  is 
straightaway  work  it  can  be  done  better  by  contractors,  and  should 
be  done  by  contract.  Where  the  work  involves  a  great  deal  of  un- 
certainty, it  is  dangerous  to  contract,  for  two  reasons.  First,  if  the 
contractor  is  very  conservative,  he  will  bid  high  to  cover  all  contin- 
gencies, and  we  will  pay  too  much  by  contract;  or  if  he  doesn't  do 
that,  and  these  contingencies  happen,  he  will  go  broke  and  you  will 
have  the  work  coming  back  onto  the  Government  and  there  will  be 
a  lot  of  extra  expense  attached  to  it.  Every  failing  contractor  is  a 
great  menace  and  loss  to  the  Government — not  only  to  the  contractor 
but  to  the  Government. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Under  this  bill  you  could  not  contract  any,  could  you? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  How? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Just  as  we  do  now. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  the  point  exactly.  Unless  you  violate  that 
one  provision  that  says  that  the  work  shall  be  given  to  soldiers,  how 
can  you  do  it  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  We  can  make  that"  specification  in  the  contract. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  the  contractor  should  employ  soldiers? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir:  give  preference  to  soldiers. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  It  says,  so  far  as  it  is  possible  to  utilize. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  just  what  I  was  getting  at.  Then  in  advance 
you  contract  it  and  you  then  eliminate  the  soldier,  because  the  con- 
tractor could  employ  whom  ho  pleased.  Otherwise  you  make  the 
soldier  a  semi-peon  of  the  contractor. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  459 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  contractors  will  have  to  pay  the  market  price  for 
labor,  and  if  he  is  required  to  give  preference  to  soldiers,  that  will 
tend  to  keep  other  laborers  away,  and  if  anything  has  a  slight  tend- 
ency to  possibly  increase  the  price — but  any  restriction,  of  course, 
increases  the  price.  But  the  law  requires  that  preference  shall  be 
given  to  the  soldier,  that  he  shall  be  utilized  if  possible,  and  we  can 
put  that  requirement  in  the  specification. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  One  feature  of  that,  Mr.  Davis,  is  that  that  would 
<;heck  any  wastefulness  or  extravagance  on  the  part  of  the  contractors. 
If  there  is  a  body  of  men  working  for  him  and  working  about  him 
all  the  time  in  the  community  that  is  directly  interested  in  the  suc- 
cess of  the  project,  and  therefore  there  will  be  agitation  at  once  if 
there  is  any  obvious  wastefulness,  just  as  you  instanced  here  with 
regard  to  the  instance  down  there  in  New  Mexico,  where  the  people 
complained  about  the  difference  in  price  between  contract  and  Gov- 
ernment work. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir ;  and  they  want  the  Government  work,  and  that 
reminds  me  of  a  statement  made  by  a  member  of  the  committee 
one  day,  in  entire  good  humor,  and  I  have  no  doubt  in  good  faith, 
regarding  an  occurence  which  he  said  he  had  known  of,  of  men  in  the 
Reclamation  Service  playing  tennis  in  office  hours.  Possibly,  that 
occurred.  I  don't  deny  it;  I  don't  know  the  case;  maybe  he  does 
know.  I  have  heard  such  a  charge  with  reference  to  the  Reclamation 
Service  twice  in  the  17  years  that  it  has  been  running,  and  it  happens 
that  they  were  both  in  States  represented  on  this  committee.  One 
was  in  South  Dakota,  where  they  made  a  similar  claim,  not  that  they 
were  playing  tennis  but  that  the  men  did  not  work  full  hours,  and 
in  tracing  that  down  I  found  that  there  was  only  one  case  that  this 
man  could  specify,  and  we  found  by  following  iti  down  that 
that  was  a  case  where  a  survey  party  had  finished  its  work  and  was, 
in  fact,  driving  back  to  camp  in  the  middle  of  the  afternoon  because 
it  had  finished  its  work.  Now,  probably  this  man  didn't  know  that. 
He  met  them  in  the  road  and  knew  the  men  and  saw  that  they  were 
quitting  work  and  going  back  to  camp,  and  he  jumped  at  the  con- 
clusion that  they  ought  not  to  have  done  it.  The  fact  was  that  they 
probably,  as  most  of  those  field  surveyors  do,  worked  several  hours 
in  the  evening,  working  up  their  notes,  but  whether  or  not  that  was 
the  case,  that  was  the  basis  of  that  charge. 

The  other  charge  was  made  on  the  Minadoka  project,  where  a  man 
claimed  that  some  loafing  of  that  kind  had  been  done  on  the  job, 
and  when  I  brought  him  down  to  it,  he  knew  of  only  one  individual, 
:and  I  think  of  only  one  case  where  he  could  actually  specify,  and  I 
asked  him  this:  "'When  you  found  that  out,  did  you  inform  the 
project  manager  about  it  and  ask  that  it  be  corrected?"  He  said: 
"  Xo,  I  didn't  tell  anybody  about  it.  I  didn't  want  to  be  butting  in 
on  anything  that  wasn't  any  of  my  business."  I  said:  "Did  you  tell 
me?"  "No,"  he  did  not.  'Then  I  said:  "Aren't  you  more  to  blame 
about  that  than  I  am?  I  promise  you  this,  that  if  a  case  of  that 
kind  comes  to  my  attention,  I  will,  so  far  as  my  power  goes,  correct 
it.  And  hereafter  if  you  see  anything  of  that  kind  going  on,  you 
tell  somebody  who  can  correct  it,  or  else  take  the  blame  yourself." 
He  agreed. 

Now  if  this  information  had  been  given  to  the  proper  party,  and 
there  really  had  been  an  abuse,  it  would  have  been  corrected.  I 


460  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

don't  claim  that  the  men  in  the  Reclamation  Service  are  perfect  or 
anything  of  that  kind,  but  I  do  claim  that  we  use  every  effort  to  ap- 
proximate perfection  as  far  as  we  possibly  can,  and  that  is  some- 
thing, that  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  will  be  applied  to  the  carrying 
out  of  this  legislation. 

There  have  been  a  number  of  references  in  this  committee — and 
it  is  a  very  common  reference  everywhere — that  everything  under 
Government  supervision  or  Government  operation  has  to  be  extrava- 
gant and  inefficient ;  and  that  is  true  only  to  the  extent  that  it  is  un- 
avoidable in  other  things.  If  you  try  to  organize  an  army  of  4,000,- 
000  men  in  a  year  or  two,  it  is  going  to  be  extravagant,  because  that 
can  not  be  done  quickly  and  economically  at  the  same  time.  It  can 
not  be  done  by  anybody,  and  a  contractor  or  anybody  else  would 
have  to  waste  money  in  building  up  an  organization  of  men  that 
he  didn't  know,  that  he  didn't  know  where  to  place  them  until  he 
tried  them,  and  all  that  kind  of  thing;  and  that  is  why  I  asked  him, 
when  the  chairman  put  the  question  to  me,  not  to  appropriate  more 
than  $75,000,000  the  first  year.  We  have  got  a  big  organization, 
but  compared  with  this,  it  is  a  small  one,  a  nucleus  from  which  we 
can  build,  and  we  will  save  a  large  amount  of  time  and  a  large 
amount  of  efficiency,  but  we  can't  spend  ten  times  or  five  times  that 
amount  of  money  in  that  same  time  with  the  same  efficiency.  An 
organization  in  order  to  be  efficient  has  got  to  be  a  growth;  it  has 
got  to  be  under  a  competent  man;  but  the  most  competent  and  the 
smartest  man  in  the  world  can't  see  what  a  man's  qualifications  are 
by  looking  at  him.  He  has  got  to  know  him.  There  is  another  rea- 
son for  giving  preference  to  the  men  that  work  on  these  projects. 
We  want  our  settlers  to  succeed,  and  if  four  or  five  apply  for  the 
same  homestead,  we  want  to  have  the  discretion  by  which  we  can 
use  our  common  sense  and  judgment  and  acquaintance  with  them  to 
pick  out  the  man1  that  is  most  likely  to  succeed,  because  it  is  no  kind- 
ness to  the  man  who  is  going  to  fail  to  put  him  on  one  of  these  home- 
steads, and  it  is  not  just  to  the  Government  that  we  should  do  so, 
and  where  there  is  a  choice  between  men  applying  for  the  same  thing, 
it  ought  to  be  exercised  with  the  utmost  discretion  and  care,  and 
power  to  do  that  is  a  very  important  one  in  this  bill.  And  if  this 
work  or  any  other  work  that  is  carried  on  by  the  Government  is  car- 
ried on  successfully,  the  organization  must  not  be  unduly  rushed, 
as  the  organization  of  tne  Army  necessarily  had  to  be  under  the 
circumstances — I  am  not  blaming  anybody  for  that — but  except  under 
such  unusual  circumstances,  there  is  no  reason  why  work  can  not  be 
done  by  the  Government  just  as  cheaply,  or  more  so,  than  it  can  by 
anybody  else.  If  it  is  not,  it  is  somebody's  fault.  It  may  be  mine; 
it  may  be  somebody  else's,  but  there  isn't  anything  inherent  in  it  that 
makes  it  many  more  expensive. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Isn't  there  a  necessity  for  some  haste  here  if  you  are 
going  to  absorb  these  soldiers  before  they  get  established  in  some 
other  lines  of  industry  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  There  is  a  necessity  for  some  haste,  but  not  undue 
haste,  that  would  induce  a  large  amount  of  waste.  If  you  had  asked 
that  question  six  months  ago,  I  probably  would  have  answered  it  in 
the  affirmative,  because  then  we  expected  a  great  glut  in  the  labor 
market,  but  that  doesn't  exist.  There  isn't  much  of  that.  There  is 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIEKS.  461 

likely  to  be  a  little,  as  another  million  men  come  home  and  more 
people  are  thrown  out  of  employment  by  the  Government  and  muni- 
tion factories  that  are  not  yet  thrown  out,  and  after  the  farming  sea- 
son is  past.  All  of  those  things  will  come  pretty  close  together.  We 
are  going  to  get  a  lot  of  people  back  here  in  time  to  take  care  of  the 
harvest  probably,  but  there  is  bound  to  be  a  more  redundant  labor 
supply  under  similar  circumstances  in  the  fall  and  winter  than  there 
is  in  the  harvest  season. 

There  always  is,  and  that  is  in  this  case  going  to  be  coincident 
with  more  people  being  brought  back  from  across  the  water,  prob- 
ably. But  in  any  event,  there  will  not  be  more,  in  my  opinion — my 
judgment  is  not  any  better,  perhaps,  than  yours  on  that — but  I 
don't  think  we  are  going  to  have  that  pressure  to  give  men  jobs. 
The  appropriation  system  I  have  mentioned  will  take  care  of  a  large 
number  and  will  have  a  tendency  to  steady  the  labor  market,  and 
other  public  enterprises  ought  to  be  started  probably  if  anything  of 
that  kind  does  occur.  But  by  keeping  this  thing  in  conservative 
lines  so  that  it  can  be  handled  efficiently  and  above  reproach,  we 
establish  something  that  is  going  to  be  an  immense  benefit  to  this 
country  in  the  future,  and  I  very  strongly  urge  that  if  the  in- 
filtration method  of  settlement,  or  an  unduly  large  appropriation, 
or  anything  else  that  is  designed  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  service  is 
deemed  necessary  by  Congress  it  be  separated  from  a  proposition 
like  this  which  should  be  kept  solvent,  and  by  introducing  an  ele- 
ment of  insolvency  into  it  you  permeate  the  whole  mass  and  may  spoil 
it  all.  I  simply  hold  that  out  as  a  suggestion  that  you  do  not  com- 
bine the  two. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Right  there,  Mr.  Davis,  what  is  to  become  of  the  sol- 
diers in  a  given  State  where  no  project  at  all  is  established,  and 
where  none  can  be  established  from  the  nature  of  the  land  and  the 
nature  of  the  holdings,  the  nature  of  the  farms,  etc.?  What  is  to 
be  done  with  the  soldiers  in  that  State?  Is  their  ownly  alternative 
to  move  away  to  some  other  State?  What  is  the  answer  to  that? 

Mr.  DAVIS.*  The  answer  I  would  give  to  that  is  that  he  can  obtain 
employment  unless  there  is  a  glut  in  the  labor  market  in  such  in- 
dustry as  he  desires  to  follow.  And  of  course  if  he  desires  to  go  to 
farming  on  a  Government  project  he  would  have  to  go  to  a  State 
where  there  is  one. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Of  course,  that  introduces  an  element  of  unfairness 
into  the  proposition,  that  a  man  in  one  State  where  there  is  no 
project  must  catch  as  catch  can,  while  in  another  State  he  may  avail 
himself  of  the  local  conditions. 

Mr.  MAYS.  It  might  be  just  as  much  a  hardship  often  for  a  man 
to  go  from  one  county  to  another  in  the  same  State. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Oh,  I  'don't  think  so. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  You  can  apply  that  to  a  big  State  like  Texas  or 
California.'    That  would  apply  absolutely  if  a  man  had  to  go  from 
one  end  of  California  to  the  other.     He  would  just  as  soon  go  over 
to  Nevada  from  Judge  Raker's  country,  or  rather  than  he  woul( 
go  down  to  southern  California. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  But  all  the  States  are  not  as  long  as  California. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Will  you  just  allow  me  to  make  a  suggestion  there? 
I  don't  want  to  argue  this  matter  out,  but  when  the  homestead  act 
was  up  for  consideration  in  Congress  that  same  argument  was  made. 


462  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

They  said:  "Here,  a  man  will  have  to  go  from  the  State  of  New 
York  out  to  the  State  of  Indiana,  or  Iowa,  in  order  to  get  the  benefit 
of  that  act.  Now,  why  not  instead  of  letting  him  go  there  and  take 
160  acres  of  land,  give  him  $160  and  let  him  start  in  business?  " 

I  don't  want  to  argue  the  matter,  but  that  same  suggestion  was 
made  then. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  recognize  that  is  a  partial  answer  to  it,  but  not  in 
toto.  Let  me  ask  the  director  another  question.  In  the  reclamation 
act  of  1902  it  carried  a  provision  which  provided  that  the  money 
should  be  expended  equitably  among  the  States,  and  provided  that 
it  should  be  distributed  among  them  according  to  the  receipts  from 
public  lands.  That,  of  course,  was  later  repealed.  Now,  what  would 
you  say  to  an  appropriation  in  this  bill,  which  would  provide  that  on 
this  Government  expenditure,  and  this  Government  establishment  of 
projects,  that  it  should  be  prorated  among  the  States  according  to 
the  soldier  population  of  a  given  State,  so  that  each  State  would 
have  a  chancel 

Mr.  DAVIS.  My  impression  is  that  that  would  be  unwise. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Why? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Because  it  substitutes  a  principle  that  is  antagonistic 
to  the  principle  of  the  merits  of  the  project. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  do  you  mean  by  that? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  mean  the  financial  and  physical  merits  of  the  projects 
themselves.  For  example,  there  are  many  perfectly  legitimate, 
straight,  economic  arguments,  the  character  of  the  land,  its  location 
and  proximity  to  markets,  and  various  things  of  that  kind,  and  the 
prices  of  the  land  is  a  very  important  element;  and  to  throw  some- 
thing in  there  that  absolutely  ignores  those  things  and  compels  you 
to  override  those  things  is  one  of  the  elements  of  failure. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Now,  that  seems  to  me  to  be  a  partial  answer  to  the 
economic  side  of  it,  but  that  seems  to  me  to  be  totally  wanting  in 
any  answer  at  all  as  to  doing  fairness  to  all  these  soldiers.  What  is 
your  answer  to  that? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  answer  I  have  to  that  is  that  I  have  certainly  no 
objection  to  any  such  legislation  as  Congress  desires  that  will  ac- 
complish the  results  you  mention,  but  don't  tie  it  up  with  a  proposi- 
tion that  ought  to  be  kept  solvent. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  But  there  will  be  many  who  will  be  unwilling  to  let 
you  legislate  for  part  of  them  without  legislating  for  all  of  them. 
That  brings  you  back  to  the  point  .of  making  it  entirely  legislative 
while  you  are  at  it,  doesn't  it? 

Mr. 'DAVIS.  Yes,  it  does;  but  it  should  be  put  through  as  a  separate 
measure.  What  I  am  trying  to  get  at  is  this:  If  something  that  I 
believe  is  not  going  to  be  solvent  is  carried  out  by  Congress,  I  want 
Congress  and  not  I  to  take  the  responsibility.  That  is  'all. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Well,  it  is  Congress  that  is  responsible  anyway. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Mr.  Davis,  I  would  like  to  ask  you  another  question. 
Referring  to  the  question  of  solvency,  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
director  this  question.  We  will  take  the  case  of  the  young  man  who 
has  been  raised  on  a  farm,  born  on  a  farm,  and  has  agricultural  ex- 
perience, the  kind  of  experience  that  is  valuable,  and  he  might  go 
to  the  city — we  are  talking  about  congestion — and  he  could  pay  50 
per  cent  on  a  small  investment  to  get  him  a  little  home.  He  would 
like  to  do  it  there,  and  he  knows  all  about  the  environment  and  the 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  463 

circumstances,  and  he  has  what  you  have  designated  as  a  great 
requisite,  ambition,  and  the  purpose  to  win.  Now,  if  he  is  loaned 
by  this  Government  50  per  cent  of  his  project — a  small  project — on 
the  pure  question  of  solvency,  isn't  the  Government  mighty  well 
safeguarded  in  that  case? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Certainly.  I  am  not  criticizing  any  such  opportunity 
at  all,  but  what  I  have  referred  to  is  the  provisions  of  this  bill  which 
loans  him  up  to  pretty  nearly  90  per  cent  of  all  of  his  property. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  want  you  to  thoroughly  understand  my  proposition. 
My  proposition  is  not  to  loan  him  so  much  money,  but  he  wants  to 
go  into  business  and  he  sees  an  opportunity. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board  can  take  care  of  that 
kind  of  a  case,  excepting  that  they  charge  a  little  higher  rate  of 
interest,  and  the  Government  might  take  care  of  that.  I  think,  as 
I  said  before  in  answer  to  one  of  your  other  questions,  such  a  propo- 
sition could  be  better  handled  by  the  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board 
which  already  has  the  machinery  for  doing  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Davis,  get  him  back  now  to  the  question  of  giving 
the  young  man  or  the  soldier,  employment — and  I  read  that  from 
the  circular — how  long  would  it  be  if  this  law  was  enacted,  say,  within 
the  next  month,  and  you  started  to  carry  out  the  provisions  of  it — how 
long  would  it  be  before  homes  would  be  ready  for  these  boys  to  file 
on  and  commence  to  crop  the  farms,  get  a  crop  on  the  farm,  in  your 
judgment? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  would  be  a  pretty  wild  guess  for  me  to  answer 
that  question.  I  think  we  could  probably  have  some  ready  within  a 
year,  and  certainly  we  could  have  some  within  two  years. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  how  many  acres  are  there  on  the  reclamation 
projects,  all  of  them,  approximately — that  is,  Government  land,  at 
the  present  time — present  reclamation  projects? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  not  Government  land. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  Government  land  at  the  present  time. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Very  little  of  it.  You  mean  that  water  is  ready  for  or 
not. 

Mr.  RAKER.  No;  that  water  is  not  ready  for  use.  Take  all  the 
lands  on  the  reclamation  projects  now,  how  much  land  is  there  that 
is  not  under  cultivation  for  want  of  water,  that  could  be  made  into 
homes  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  About  a  million  acres. 

Mr.  RAKER.  If  a  sufficient  amount  of  money  were  appropriated,  so 
that  you  could  go  to  work  immediately,  and  put  on  from  100,000  to 
500,000  soldiers,  how  long  would  it  be  before  these  projects  would 
be  completed  and  the  water  placed  upon  the  lands,  and  then  they 
be  made  into  homes  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  You  mean  under  an  appropriation  sufficient  to  com- 
plete them? 

Mr.  RAKER.  An  appropriation  sufficient  within  the  next  two  weeks 
now. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  completion  of  those  projects  and  the  preparation 
for  settlers  contemplated  in  this  bill  on  all  existing  projects  I  think 
would  take  something  like  four  years.    Individual  structures  would 
take  that  long  to  build,  very  nearly. 
133319—19 30 


464  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIEES. 

Mr.  RAKER.  If  you  had  from  100,000  to  500,000  men  to  put  on 
those  immediately? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  We  would  employ  what  we  could.  Of  course,  you  can 
only  employ  a  limited  number  on  any  given  structure  and  structural 
requirements.  I  took  five  years  to  build  the  Arrowrock  Dam,  and 
it  could  not  have  been  built  much  quicker  if  you  had  had  40,000 
men. 

Mr.  RAKER.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  then,  if  a  larger  appropriation 
was  made,  a  sufficient  amount  to  complete  them,  they  are  so  located 
and  so  situated  that  it  would  be  from  one  to  three  or  four  years 
before  the  land  could.be  put  under  cultivation? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir.  The  quickest  results  would  be  obtained  in 
the  Eastern  States. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  what  I  wanted  to  get. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Why  is  that  so,  Mr.  Davis  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Because  the  work  is  of  a  different  character.  In  some 
of  these  Eastern  States  we  can  do  clearing  and  draining  of  a  small 
tract  and  put  settlers  on  in  a  short  time  where,  a  corresponding 
iproject  in  the  West  would  require  construction  of  long  canals  and 
large  reservoirs,  and  things  of  that  kind.  Engineering  works  in  ir- 
rigation are  necessarily  of  a  different  character  from  those  in  the 
East,  which  require  different  kinds  of  reclamation — that  is,  it  is  not 
necessarily  in  large  tracts. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  anything  further  you  wish  to  add,  Mr. 
Davis? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Only  one  small  matter  that  I  have  not  had  a  chance 
to  present  as  yet. 

We  have  had  reference  already — implied  at  least — to  the  failure 
of  irrigation  and  to  low  production,  etc. ;  and  we  have  also 
referred  to  the  values  that  attach  to  land  by  reason  of  the  existence 
of  projects  themselves,  and  I  want  to  read  a  letter  from  the  project 
manager  of  the  Minidoka  project,  dated  June  5 — very  recent. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  State  is  that  in? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  In  Idaho.  It  is  a  report  of  the  State  land  sale  held 
on  the  Minidoka  project,  May  23  and  24,  for  the  Reclamation  Record. 
This  project  is  the  one  that  has  been  irrigated  by  the  United  States. 
There  is  a  State-owned  land  in  there  and  they  have  from  time  to  time 
allowed  people  to  buy  who  wanted  to  buy  it,  and  this  cleans  up  the 
State  land  that  they  had  there,  and  it  is  mostly  culls;  it  is  not  of 
as  high  a  character  as  the  rest  of  the  land,  and  here  is  the  result  of 
the  sale — mind  you,  this  land  all  has  to  pay  the  full  price  for  the 
water  yet  after  the  man  buys  it. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Idaho.  In  addition  to  the  price  mentioned? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  In  addition  to  these  prices.     [Reading:] 

During  this  sale  n  total  of  .'!.">  pieces  of  project  land  were  sold,  aggregating 
1,240  acres.  Of  this  there  was  irrigable  GHG  acres,  of  which  202  are  under 
the  gravity  system  and  394  tinder  pumping  system. 

The  total  sale  price  of  this  land  was  .S.~>2,2 14.  is.  an  average  of  S-12.1.1',  per 
acre.  One  4<t-acre  tract,  ahoui  (5  miles  from  T.urley.  sold  for  *1!)0  per  acre, 
and  another  one  for  .Sin."  per  acre.  Minimum  price,  $!(>  per  acre.  The  high 
average  price  is  regarded  as  very  significant  of  conditions  on  the  Mindoka 
project,  OS  this  land  represents  the  tag  ends  that  have  been  left  over  a  Her  several 
sales  and  does  nut  by  any  means  represent  the  average  quality  of  the  lands  mi 
the  tracts.  Every  piece  offered  at  the  sale  was  sold. 


HOMES  FOK  SOLDIERS.  465 

Now,  that  is  not  any  land  speculator  misleading  settlers;  it  is  the 
State,  under  the  operation  of  the  State  law,  selling  lands  open  to  all, 
advertising  th  >m  in  advance  and  selling  it  all  in  one  day. 

Mr.  VALLE.  I  had  one  question  that  I  wanted  to  ask  a  little  further 
along  this  line  of  cost  of  Government  work.  We  will  probably  have 
to  moot  the  same  argument  in  the  House,  and,  perhaps,  the  case  will 
be  there  cited  of  the  high  cost  of  Government  work  on  the  various 
large-  plants,  such  as  the  plant  at  Nitro,  W.  Va.  I  have  heard  that 
one  in  particular  criticized.  Now,  isn't  the  difference  in  those  cases 
due  to  the  system  of  paying  the  contractor  on  a  percentage  of  the 
cost  of  the  work  which  was  done,  on  account  of  the  ne  essity  of 
speeding  up  for  the  war,  and  does  that  apply  to  work  by  the  Gov- 
ernment on  a  reclamation  project? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No  contract  that  offers  a  reward  for  wastefulness  and 
extravagance  will  ever  be  approved  by  me,  and  I  think  it  is  a  per- 
nicious practice. 

Mr.  VAILE.  You  would  not  approve  of  a  contract  price  which 
would  compensate  a  contractor  on  a  basis  of  so  much  of  the  percent- 
age of  cost? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No,  sir;  becausa  that  offers  a  reward  for  wastefulness. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Mr.  Davis,  may  I  ask  you  a  question,  and  that  is 
this — you  probably  have  gone  into  it,  of  estimating  how  long  a 
young  man  will  work  on  these  projects — from  one  and  a  half  to  two 
years,  I  believe  you  intimated — before  he  could  go  onto  his  particular 
farm.  Have  you  also  estimated  what  it  would  probably — what  he 
would  probably — save  save  in  that  time?  Because  most  of  th  se 
soliders  go  onto  these  projects,  I  assume,  without  any  money;  and 
what  proportion  of  the  amount  of  money  he  would  save  before  he 
would  get  to  working  on  the  farm  would  he  have  to  invest  in  that 
farm,  the  5  per  cent  payment,  also  in  the  payment  on  his  house, 
also  in  the  payment  on  his  live  stock,  and  what  condition  he  would 
be  in  when  he  finally  gets  things  started  to  do  general  farming,  buy- 
ing seed,  etc.  ?  Have  you  made  any  estimates  of  where  the  young  man 
would  be  along  that  line,  and  whether  we  are  safe  in  assuming  that  he 
can  carry  these  payments  through  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Your  question  refers  does  it  not,  to  how  he  would  get 
the  initial  payment? 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Yes;  how  he  would  get  all  these  initial  payments, 
and  whether  he  would  be  safe  and  whether  the  Government  would  be 
safe,  and  whether  we  are  properly  safeguarding  that  soldier  in  this 
investment  that  we  are  proposing  for  him  now  to  undertake. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  certainly  we  are  safeguarding  the  Government, 
for  under  the  circumstances  that  are  contemplated  in  this  bill  and  by 
the  executive  office,  the  margin  of  safety  that  the  bill  provides  for  the 
Government,  I  think,  is  ample. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  I  think  so,  too ;  but  do  you  think  it  is  safe  for  the 
soldier? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  From  the  soldier's  end  it  means  that  only  such  soldiers 
as  are  energetic  and  prudent  can  take  advantage  of  it.  If  it  is  class 
legislation  at  all,  it  is  class  legislation  in  favor  of  that  class  who  are 
energetic  and  prudent:  and  if  a  man  can  not  save  enough  in  a  year 
and  a  half,  he  can  keep  working  two  years,  or  three  years,  or  more. 
This  is  going  to  take  at  least  five  years  to  complete,  and  if  there  is 
any  physical  reason  why  in  four  or  five  years  he  can  not  save  enough 


466  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

to  make  his  payments,  he  will  have  to  be  dropped  out.  But  as  a  rule, 
that  is  the  length  of  time  that  a  man  ought  to  have  in  order  for  you 
to  become  acquainted  with  his  moral  character;  make  him  what  the 
bankers  call  a  good,  moral  risk — and  we  have  been  told  by  the  leading 
bankers  in  Xew  York  that  the  moral  element  is  five  times  as  important 
as  the  financial  element. 

They  give  five  times  the  weight  to  a  man's  character  as  an  indus- 
trious man,  knowing  his  business  and  wanting  to  pay  his  debts,  as 
they  give  to  the  financial  status  back  of  him.  Now,  I  think  that  same 
rule  should  be  applied  by  the  Government,  and  I  think  right  there  is 
one  of  the  greatest  goods  that  this  law  will  do;  it  will  offer  a  reward 
lor  the  virtues  that  we  want  to  instill  in  all  people,  that  we  all  need ; 
and  the  law  that  holds  up  to  the  man  a  prize  to  be  attained  by  in- 
dustry, by  prudence,  and  by  self-denial,  and  by  improving  his  own 
abilities,  so  that  he  can  draw  more  pay,  either  on  a  project  or  in  other 
Avork — all  of  those  inducements  are  inducements  in  the  direction  of 
making  those  men  what  we  would  like  to  make  them,  to  make  them 
what  we  all  would  like  to  be  and  all  ought  to  be,  and  it  will  have  a 
very  strong  moral  effect.  It  will  be  one  of  the  strongest  elements.  I 
think,  to  accomplish  what  this  bill  is  designed  to  accomplish,  to  make 
men,  to  put  men  on  these  projects  who  will  succeed. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  I  think  that  is  right,  but  I  was  wondering  if  you 
made  any  investigations  along  the  line,  where  the  young  man  has 
these  attributes  that  we  are  looking  for,  how  long  is  would  take  him 
by  saving  to  arrive  at  a  position  where  he  was  safe  to  go  on  this 
project  and  operate  it  himself? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  would  depend  on  the  man. 
Mr.  HERSMAN.  Take  the  average  man. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Well,  the  average  man  wrould  probably  take  at  least 
two  years.  I  have  heard  people  say  that  the  Secretary  said  he  was 
going  to  pay  these  men  $4  a  day.  He  did  not  say  anything  of  the 
kind.  He  took  that  as  a  basis,  and  probably  $4  a  day  will  be  some- 
where near  the  average  payment  made.  Some  men' would  get  $10 
a  day  because  they  are  worth  it,  and  can't  be  hired  for  less.  Wo 
propose  to  pay  the  going  wages,  and  we  know  that  wages  are  high, 
and  that  is  the  reason  we  figured  the  basis  high,  and  counting  300 
working  days  for  the  year,  a  man  can  earn  about  $1,200  in  a  year; 
and  if  he  is  the  right  kind  of  a  man  he  can  save  half  of  that.  If 
he  has  a  family  to  suppot,  some  men  could  not  do  that.  Those  men 
who  are  unfortunate  in  that  respect  might  have  some  other  legis- 
lation to  look  after  them.  But  if  a  man  can't  do  it  in  two  years,  he 
can  do  it  in  three. 

Mr.  BEXHAM.  You  would,  of  course,  pay  the  same  wages  for  the 
same  kind  of  work  in  all  parts  of  the  country? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Well,  that  would  be  a  matter  of  detail  policy.  I  don't 
think  the  wages  are  the  same  in  all  parts  of  the  country.  Living 
expenses  are  not  the  same  in  all  parts  of  the  country — they  prob- 
ably would  not  be  the  same. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  You  would  pay  the  wages  of  the  locality? 
Mr.  DAVIS.  It  is  proposed  and  provided  in  this  bill  that  a  portion 
of  these  allotments  will  bo  what  are  called  "  farm  worker  allot- 
ments.'' whciv  n  man  who  is  not  physically,  or  otherwise  equipped 
to  become  a  farmer,  can  handle  100  acres,  or  80  acres,  as  the  case 
may  be,  may  take  an  allotment  of  2  or  3  acres  near  town,  and  make. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  467 

the  most  of  his  living  working  at  something  else,  either  as  a  me- 
chanic in  the  village,  or  working  for  the  farmers  around  there— 
blacksmithing,  perhaps,  at  the  crossroads,  or  working  as  a  farm 
laborer.  Men  do  prefer  to  work  that  way  because  they  know  that 
they  couldn't  manage  a  farm.  That  is  actual  experience. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  in  operation  now  in  California. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  in  operation  now  in  California  and  Australia 
and  in  all  European  countries,  and  that  allotment  will  be  very  much 
cheaper  than  the  rest,  and  under  this  legislation  it  would  not  re- 
quire half  the  money  for  him  to  start  with.  In  California  they 
don't  require  him  to  have  any  money.  This  law  will.  He  has  to 
have  a  certain  percentage  of  his  improvements.  Now,  that  man 
would  have  a  cow;  he  would  have  a  few  pigs  and  a  few  chickens, 
and  his  family  could  take  care  of  them  when  he  is  away.  If  he  has 
no  family,  of  course,  he  would  not  have  them,  and  of  "course,  if  he 
does  have  them,  he  would  have  somebody  to  take  care  of  them,  and 
this  allotment  would  be  big  enough  to  raise  a  garden  and  give  him 
some  employment  when  he  is  out  of  work  in  other  places,  and  it 
would  make  a  home  for  him,  and  the  farm  laborers  in  that  commu- 
nity become  home  owners  and  good  citizens,  and  men  who  frown  on 
all  sorts  -of  anarchism,  rather  than  the  hobo  that  so  many  of  them 
now  are,  because  they  don't  have  constant  employment  and  don't 
have  any  home,  nor  family  ties. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Just  one  more  question  to  get  my  mind  clear  on  one 
phase  of  it.  What  amount  of  money  will  this  young  man  need  to  get 
the  kind  of  home  that  you  under  this  bill  propose  for  him,  and  to  pay 
his  initial  payments  on  his  land,  on  his  live  stock,  and  on  his  build- 
ings ?  How  much  money  would  he  have  to  have  saved  up  to  accom- 
plish that  on  what  you  would  say  is  the  average  farm? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  From  $1,000  to  $1,500. 

Mr.  JOHXSON.  Wouldn't  that,  Mr.  Director,  depend  on  where  he 
was  located  ?  In  some  sections  of  the  country  you  would  get  land  at 
very  low  prices :  in  others  very  high  prices. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes ;  there  might  be  a  wide  margin. 

Mr.  HERSMAX.  Would  $1,000  or  $1,500  provide  his  seed  and  assure 
him  a  living  for  a  year  until  his  harvest  comes  in? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No,  sir;  I  didn't  include  that. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  I  would  like  to  have  you  give  me  a  general  idea 
what  is  would  be  necessary  for  the  young  man  to  have  in  order  for 
him  to  be  safe  over  that  first  year  until  the  harvest  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  would  mean  something  more.  Probably  you 
would  have  to  add  $200  or  $300  to  what  I  said. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Provided  that  man  might  have  a  family,  a  wife  and 
maybe  a  child,  do  you  think  that  $2,000  would  make  these  initial  pay- 
ments and  provide  for  the  first  year  and  secure  his  seed  that  was 
necessary  for  planting  for  the  first  year,  until  his  first  harvest 
came  in? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  so. 

Mr.  HERSMAX.  You  think  that  $2,000  would  be  about  the  average? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Well,  I  would  put  that  amount  to  be  required— that 
would  be  the  maximum  necessary. 

Mr.  HERSMAX.  Si>,000  would  be  the  minimum? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is,  the  average  case  would  require  that  much 
minimum.  There  are  two  averages  in  there ;  one  is  the  average  case 


468  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

and  the  other  is  the  average  man.  Now,  many  of  these  men  will  have 
several  thousand  dollars.  Many  of  our  settlers  are  going  to  have 
three  or  four  thousand  dollars. 

Mr.  HERSMAX.  I  was  just  arriving  at  something  where  I  could 
make  an  estimate  of  what  this  man  would  need  in  order  to  carry  him 
over  the  first  year. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Why,  perhaps  $1,800  would  be  the  average  needed. 
That,  of  course,  you  will  understand,  is  a  very  rough  estimate. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Now,  Mr.  Davis,  the  Government  wants  to  take 
this  young  man  to  this  farm  and  the  object  of  this  committee,  and 
I  think  the  object  of  every  man  who  has  appeared  before  this  com- 
mittee has  been  to  protect  the  soldier  in  his  investment  as  well  as  to 
protect  the  Government,  but  the  first  object  is  to  give  the  soldier  an 
opportunity.  Now,  we  will  say  he  has  saved  $2,000  and  he  has  pro- 
vided for  the  first  year  of  his  efforts.  He  has  gotten  in  his  crop  and 
he  is  ready  to  harvest  it.  Now,  don't  you  think  that  the  Government 
should  provide  that  soldier  against  a  possible  loss  of  that  first  year's 
crop,  which  would  mean  a  loss  of  four  years  work,  which  would'mean 
a  failure  of  the  Government  with  that  particular  man  on  that  par- 
ticular farm,  and  don't  you  think  that  the  Government  ought  to  go 
one  step  further  and  assure  that  soldier  in  some  way  that  he  has  pro- 
tection, since  he  has  got  all  his  money,  $2,000,  invested  in  his  farm, 
money  that  he  has  saved  up  with  care  and  frugality?  Don't  you 
think  the  Government  ought  to,  in  some  way,  protect  the  soldier 
against  the  loss  of  all  of  his  investment? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  this  bill  does  do  so. 

Mr.  HERSMAX.  How  does  it  do  it? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  This  bill  permits  the  transfer,  if  he  fails  and  has  to 
quit,  by  consent  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior ;  and  in  such  case,  of 
course,  the  Secretary  would  consent.  But  I  don't  see  what  other 
protection  the  Government  could  properly  put  around  him.  It  pro- 
tects him  in  the  value  of  what  he  has  paid  for.  Now,  there  is  a  value 
that  is  higher  than  the  amount  that  he  has  paid,  because  if  the  work 
has  been  economically  carried  out  the  coming  of  the  population  has 
added  to  his  value  and  he  would  be  permitted  to  sell  all  these  to  a 
new  settler,  and  the  Government  would  be  in  a  position  to  bring  him 
a  new  settler  and  buyer  if  he  were  desirous  of  that,  and  under  meri- 
torious circumstances  the  Government  would  consent  to  the  sale. 

Mr.  HERSMAX.  This  young  man  might  not  desire  to  sell ;  he  might 
want  to  stay  there,  but  under  circumstances  of  failure  in  crops  he 
might  be  forced  to  sell.  Do  you  think  it  would  be  at  all  inconsistent 
for  the  Government  to  carry  on  an  insurance  scheme  for  the  first 
year,  like  they  have  insured  our  soldiers'  lives,  to  provide  that  soldier 
proper  protection,  provided  he  has  paid  the  ordinary  rates  that  such 
insurance  would  cost  the  Government? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes ;  that  would  be  a  very  good  idea,  I  think.  There 
is  a  private  institution  for  crop  insurance  already. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Yes,  but  the  Government  carried  on  life  insurance 
at  a  very  much  lower  rate. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes. 

Mr.  HERSMAX.  And  don't  you  think  it  would  be  a  good  thing  to 
insert  in  this  bill  some  protection  for  that  soldier,  because  I  think 
the  thing  we  want  to  do  is  to  protect  that  soldier  against  eventuali- 
ties that  he  has  no  control  over. 


HOMES   FOR  SOLiUERS.  469 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  can  see  no  objection  to  giving  the  Secretary  some 
authority  of  that  kind  in  this  bill.  I  rather  hesitate  to  say  that  be- 
cause I  don't  want  to  be  misunderstood  as  committing  the  Secretary 
of  the  Interior.  He  may  have  some  objection,  I  don't  know,  but  I 
can  see  none  myself,  speaking  for  myself,  personally. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Davis,  will  the  boy  soldier  be  required  to  set  aside 
a  certain  percentage  of  his  wages  or  a  fund  to  pay  for  his  home- 
stead ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  bill  as  now  drawn  does  not  require  that. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well,  would  it  be  advisable  or  inadvisable  to  have  such 
a  provision  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  it  would  be  inadvisable.  Now,  I  am  not  saying 
that  with  any  great  emphasis,  because  I  would  not  see  that  either 
was  objectionable,  but  I  think  that  you  would,  to  a  certain  extent, 
destroy  the  incentives  that  I  have  tried  to  describe  here,  as  being  one 
of  the  advantages  of  the  plan  of  this  bill.  If  that  man  hasn't  the 
qualities  to  make  this  saving  to  his  own  advantage  without  compul- 
sion, he  is  not  the  same  caliber  as  the  man  who  has,  and  we  are  not 
going  to  be  able  to  provide  for  them  all. 

Mr.  RAKER. 'isn't  it  a  fact,  demonstrated  by  human  life,  human 
conditions  in  America,  that  the  boy  who  can  in  a  year  or  two  years 
save  from  $500  to  $1,000,  needs  no  help  from  anybody,  and  will  make 
a  success  and  can  go  and  buy  a  farm  or  a  place  wherever  he  wants 
to,  or  go  into  any  business  he  wants  to  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  There  are  some  people  who  can  do  that. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  what  percentage  of  the  soldiers — what  percent- 
age of  those  provided  for  in  this  bill — would  be  able  to  save,  or  would 
save,  in  your  judgment,  from  $500  to  $1,000  in  from  one  to  three 
years  working  on  these  projects? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  all  of  them,  excepting  those  who  are  unfortu- 
nately situated  in  their  family  relations,  who  have  a  burden  of  some 
kind,  parents  or  large  family  to  support  out  of  their  wages.  I  don't 
say  they  all  would,  by  any  means. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Isn't  this  a  good  deal  true,  that  if  a  man  can't  save 
anything,  working  out  on  a  project  of  this  kind  at  $4  a  day,  or  some- 
thing of  that  kind,  he  isn't  going  to  make  very  much  of  a  success 
farming  any  place  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  exactly  what  I  think. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  A  man  has  got  to  be  thrifty  if  he  is  going  to  make  a 
success  on  a  farm. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Interpolating  a  question  there,  can  you  tell  me  how 
many  of  the  young  men  to-day,  from  21  to  35  average,  we  will  say, 
from  $100  to  $500  in  two  years  ?  What  percentage  of  them  are  doing 
it  to-day,  single  men,  out  working  for  wages?  Isn't  it  a  fact  that 
the  percentage  is  almost  nil  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  is  small. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Will  we  change  the  attitude  and  the  conditions  and 
the  character  of  a  man  in  the  way  of  saving  by  simply  putting  him 
to  work  on  a  project  ? 

Mr.  MAYS.  In  the  country,  I  think,  there  is  a  very  much  larger  per- 
centage that  saves  that  amount. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  If  you  give  them  an  incentive,  they  will.  I  think  the 
operation  of  this  bill  will  do  that  very  thing. 


470  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  am  putting  these  questions  entirely  for  information. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  the  operation  of  the  bill  will  do  that  very 
thing. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Those  are  deep,  philosophical  questions,  Mr.  Davis. 

Mr.  MAYS.  There  have  been  several  suggestions  here  that  the  re- 
quirements of  this  bill,  the  financial  requirements,  should  be  re- 
duced. What  do  you  say  as  to  that? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  that  it  might  be  safe  to  reduce  them  a  little. 
I  would  not  recommend  any  reduction  in  it,  but  the  thing  that  might 
be  safely  done,  the  thing  that  probably  would  be  equivalent  to  it, 
would  be  to  increase  the  upper  limit,  what  the  Government  might  do 
in  individual  cases.  I  would  not  think  the  average  should  be  any 
higher  than  the  present  bill  provides,  but  I  do  think  it  would  be 
safe  to  go  a  little  higher,  provided  the  same  proportion  of  value 
was  required  from  the  soldier. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Could  such  a  thing  occur  that  you  let  out  the  work 
on  a  project  on  force  contract,  with  the  provision  that  the  contractor 
must  employ  soldiers;  that  they  would  strike  for  higher  wages  and 
insist  upon  ten  or  twelve  or  fifteen  dollars  a  day,  and  under  his 
contract  and  under  the  Government's  arrangement,  they  would  have 
to  be  raised  and  be  paid  that  amount,  and  after  they  had  worked  a 
year  they  would  say:  "This  project  is  costing  too  much,"  and  they 
would  quit.  And  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  cost  of  the  project  would 
be  too  much  and  there  would  not  be  any  chance  to  sell  it  for  what 
it  cost?  Could  such  a  thing  occur? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  is  conceivable,  but  I  think  there  is  no  danger  of 
such  a  thing  occurring.  The  wise  thing  to  do  would  be  to  suspend 
work  unless  other  laborers  could  be  obtained  at  reasonable  wages. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  Mr.  Davis  is  through,  I  wish  to  add  without 
his  permission  or  knowledge  that  when  the  sundry  civil  bill  was 
before  the  House  last  July,  Mr.  Sherley,  Swager  Sherley,  was  chair- 
man of  the  Appropriations  Committee,  and  there  has  never  been  a 
more  careful,  conservative,  and,  perhaps,  parsimonious  chairman 
of  a  committee  than  Mr.  Sherley,  and  he  was  not  given  to  throw- 
ing bouquets,  as  we  all  know  who  know  him.  He  said  this  concerning 
Mr.  Davis  on  the  floor  of  the  House :  "  We  have  built  up  a  splendid 
service  in  the  Reclamation  Service,  and  the  head  of  that  Service  is 
a  man  of  very  level-headed  judgment." 

I  think  all  of  you  who  have  heard  Mr.  Davis  to-day  will  agree  with 
that  statement. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  have  known  Mr.  Davis  longer  than  that,  for  about 
15  years,  and  I  want  to  corroborate  that  and  to  say  a  good  many 
more  things  in  his  favor  showing  that  he  is  competent  and  qualified 
and  capable  of  doing  actual  work. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  have  a  very  brief  witness,  gentlemen,  a  Maj. 
Littlejohn,  who  has  just  come  from  the  other  side.  He  did  not  come 
here  as  a  witness ;  I  happened  to  meet  him  this  morning,  and  if  it  is 
convenient  to  the  committee  I  should  like  to  have  the  major  step 
forward. 

This  is  Maj.  Littlejohn,  of  the  Engineers.  Major,  I  wisli  you 
would  give  us  your  views  upon  this  legislation  and  what  views  you 
have,  gathered  from  the  men  and  tell  us  something  about  your  ex- 
perience abroad — the  length  of  time  you  have  been  over  there  and  the 
opportunities  you  have  had  to  discuss  this  matter  with  the  men. 


HOMES  FOE  SOLDIEKS.  471 

STATEMENT  OF  CAPT.  K.  S.  LITTLEJOHN,  UNITED  STATES  ENGI- 
NEERS. 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  This  comes  to  me  entirely  as  a  surprise.  I  did 
not  expect  it  at  all.  I  have  not  come  with  very  much  information  in 
the  way  of  statistics  or  figures;  but  about  the  majority,  I  have  only 
been  told  that  I  would  get  it;  I  haven't  got  it  yet.  I  am  still  called 
a  captain. 

I  was  with  the  Sixth  Engineers,  Thirtieth  Division,  Second  Batal- 
lion,  about  800  to  1,000  men. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  long  were  you  on  the  other  side,. Major? 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  I  was  over  there  10  months.  I  joined  the 
Sixth  Engineers  on  the  14th  of  July  and  left  them  on  the  Rhine  on 
the  15th  of  January.  We  had  in  the  Second  Batallion  men  from 
about  42  States,  if  I  remember  rightly.  Most  of  them,  as  you  would 
suspect,  are  engineers,  either  because  they  have  had  engineering  ex- 
perience or  because  they  like  that  work,  and  a  great  many  of  them 
were  farmers  who  called  themselves  engineers  because  they  could  run 
a  tractor,  a  pump,  or  something  like  that.  I  spoke  with  some  of  them — 
this  bill  had  not  come  up  then.  I  think,  but  we  got  word  that  there  was 
some  such  project  under  consideration  over  here — and  I  asked  the  men 
of  the  Second  Batallion  what  they  thought  of  it.  They  were  all 
very  much  in  favor  of  it  for  one  or  two  reasons.  One  was  that  they 
wanted  to  get  back — when  they  got  home  they  wanted  to  get  some 
work  that  was  away  from  a  desk.  I  know  a  great  many  of  them  had 
become  more  or  less  fond  of  out-of-door  life,  and  a  number  from  the 
towMS,  who  are  now  living  in  towns,  talked  to  me  about  going  West. 
I  coming  from  Arizona  they  asked  me  for  that  reason,  possibly,  some 
questions  about  the  West,  and  so  I  imagine  that  a  lot  of  the  men  will 
want  to  go  on  farms.  Now,  there  were  a  good  many  men  that  are 
going  back  to  their  job — not  so  much  in  the  Sixth  Engineers  as  in  the 
One  hundred  and  fifth  Engineers,  which  is  a  National  Guard  unit, 
and  those  men  came  from  jobs  into  the  service. 

Now  they  are  going  back  to  their  job.  I  offered  some  of  them 
positions  in  my  contract  business — told  them  to  apply  to  me — but  I 
got  very  few  from  the  One  hundred  and  fifth  Engineers,  but  quite  a 
number  from  the  Sixth,  who  were  men  about  high-school  age,  say, 
18 — 16  or  18  to  22  or  23,  and  who  had  never  had  jobs,  or  if  they  had 
they  Avere  very  short  jobs,  and  those  men  all  wanted — at  least  a  great 
number  of  them  wanted— to  go  West.  So  I  think  that  that  would 
apply  a  little  on  the  fairness  to  Eastern  States,  or,  rather,  the  unfair- 
ness *to  Eastern  States  and  the  unfairness  to  Western  States,  that  I 
heard  discussed  here,  that  the  men  will  go  West  anyway— they  want 
to  go  West — and  that  those  who  stay  will  have  so  much  more  oppor- 
tunities of  positions  in  the  cities. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  your  native  State,  Captain? 

Capt,  LITTLEJOHN.  My  native  State  is  New  Jersey.  I  have  been 
out  West  for  the  last  15  or  20  years,  in  Mexico  and  the  Western 
States. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  had  any  experience  m  farming  your- 
self? 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  Yes;  I  have  had  some  experience  in  M«>xi<-o 
and  some  in  California.  When  I  left  Mexico  I  took  a  position  in  the 


472  HOMES   FOE  SOLDIERS. 

San  Joaquin  Light  &  Power  Co.  We  all  came  out  of  Mexico  pretty 
well  broke  when  the  revolution  started.  The  Laredo  Land  Co.,  near 
Bakersfield — there  were  two  projects  there — that  would  possibly  be 
affected  by  this.  The  Laredo  Land  Co.  has  developed  and  put  on 
lands  and  owns  a  patent  for  its  water.  I  believe  we  paid  $8  an  acre 
there,  and  the  cost  of  the  land  was  $150.  Then  the  Kern  County 
Land  Co.,  right  adjoining  us,  put  some  land  on  the  market  for  $75 
an  acre,  and  they  just  put  down  a  test  well,  and  it  seemed  to  be  a 
better  proposition  and  they  sold  better  than  the  Laredo  Land  Co. — 
at  least  they  have  made  more  sales.  We  had  a  lot  of  people  down 
there,  soldiers  from  the  Army,  who  had  not  done  fanning-  before, 
and  I  noticed  that  there  were  a  great  many  young  people,  and  the 
biggest  trouble  we  had  was  that  maybe  the  first  baby  or  the  first 
sickness  that  came  along  was  usually  about  the  time  the  first  big 
payment  was  due,  and  very  often  it  was  necessary  to  defer  that 
payment  because  he  didn't  have  the  money.  There  were  a  great 
number  of  them  that  had  to  be  put  over.  I  think  that  was  on 
account  of  their  having  expected  to  somehow  or  other,  without  any 
reason,  get  water  for  less  than  $8  an  acre,  which  the  company  had 
stated.  Somebody  started  the  rumor  that  it  would  be  $4  an  acre, 
and  I  think  they  all  believed  it  in  spite  of  the  statement  of  the 
company. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Was  that  $8  a  year? 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  That  was  $8  per  acre  per  year. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Just  where  is  that  project  located? 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  Twelve  miles  north  of  Bakersfield,  in  the  San 
Joaquin  Valley.  It  was  called  the  Laredo  Land  Co. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Is  it  near  that  little  station  of  the  same  name  on  the 
Southern  Pacific?- 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  Yes;  near  the  station  called  Laredo.  I  am 
sorry  I  haven't  got  any  more  statistics  in  the  way  of  the  number  of 
men  who  want  to  go  to  work,  who  want  to  go  out  there,  but  of  the 
men  that  I  asked,  the  most  of  them  wanted  to  go — of  the  men  in  my 
command,  I  mean. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  had  about  a  thousand,  you  say  ? 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  I  had  about  a  thousand — 800  to  1,000. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Were  they  pretty  conversant  with  the  terms  of  the 
bill? 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  No,  sir;  we  were  not.  We  got  very  little  in- 
formation. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  were  just  in  favor  of  the  general  plan  ? 

Capt.  LITTLE  JOHN.  Yes,  sir;  the  general  plan.  I  picked  it  up 
through  one  of  my  wife's  letters,  I  believe,  and  went  right  out  and 
told  the  men  about  it. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Did  they  understand  that  it  was  somewhat  along  the 
line  of  the  reclamation  law  that  had  been  in  operation  for  17  years? 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  I  can't  say  that  either ;  I  know  so  little  about  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  understood  that  they  had  to  pay  for  the 
land ;  that  they  were  not  getting  it  as  a  gratuity  ? 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  Yes;  they  understood  that.  That  was  what  1 
understood  and  what  I  told  them.  I  don't  believe  those  men — of 
course,  they  would  take  anything  that  was  given  them,  but  I  think 
they  would  be  thoroughly  satisfied  with  paying  for  the  land.  They 
are  most  of  them  men  that  want  to  pay  for  what  they  get. 


HOMES   YOU   SOLDIERS.  473 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  they  understood  that  they  had  to  pay  for  this 
land? 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  Well,  as  I  say,  that  was  what  I  told  them. 
None  of  them  understood  any  of  it  very  clearly,  but  I  never  thought 
anything  was  going  to  be  given  them. 

Mr.  XICHOLS.  Did  you  explain  to  the  men,  Major,  or  did  you  un- 
derstand yourself,  the  initial  payment  requirement;  the  amount  of 
money  the  soldier  had  to  put  in  to  begin  with  when  he  took  the  farm  ? 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHX.  No,  sir ;  I  did  not.  I  have  gotten  all  my  infor- 
mation that  amounts  to  anything  right  here. 

Mr.  XICHOLS.  Did  you  hear  the  director  to-day  say  that  it  would 
cost  approximately  $2,000 — rather  that  the  initial  payment  would 
amount  to  approximately  $2,000? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  $1,000  to  $1,500. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  believe  he  increased  that  to  about  $2,000. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  To  provide  for  the  stock  and  seed,  etc. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  think  yourself  with  that  information — do 
you  think  that  this  affords  an  opportunity  to  a  majority  of  the 
soldiers  if  they  have  to  make  an  initial  payment  of  approximately 
$2,000? 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  I  think  it  does.  I  listened  very  attentively  to 
every  word  of  Mr.  Davis's  talk,  and  I  agree  with  all  of  it  very  much; 
and  I  agree,  looking  at  it  from  the  soldier's  point  of  view,  if  I  was 
going  out  there  to  live  on  it.  with  what  Mr.  Davis  has  said.  The  only 
thing,  of  course,  that  a  soldier  will  want  to  know — take,  for  example, 
Arizona,  where  I  come  from — that  is  the  security  of  the  water ;  that 
there  is  going  to  be  a  guarantee  of  water;  or  if  not,  will  he  be  relieved 
from  payment  ?  Now,  that  is  the  big  question  on  arid  lands.  When 
I  was  in  Mexico  it  was  a  question  of  getting  water  over  the  land,  of 
putting  water  on  the  land,  and  I  think  that  would  be  very  fair  to  the 
soldier  to  guarantee  that  in  one  way  or  another.  That  comes  in  with 
the  failure  of  the  crop.  I  suppose  that  might  apply  to  that  also, 
whether  there  would  be  a  failure  from  the  act  of  God  or  failure  of 
engineering. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Major,  isn't  this  a  pretty  large  amount  to  assume  that 
a  laborer,  a  man  going  to  work  at  day's  labor  could  save  in  this  time  ? 
Isn't  that  a  pretty  large  amount  to  expect  him  to  save  and  apply  to 
the  purchase  of  a  home? 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  Well,  it  is.  There  are  very  few  of  us — hardly 
a  man.  a  young  man,  that  has  saved  $100;  but  then  he  has  been  living 
in  a  community  where  he  has  been  called  upon  to  spend,  to  live  high 
or  treat,  or  keep  up  his  end.  Now,  if  he  gets  out  there,  I  don't  think 
there  is  anybody  \vho  is  going  to  set  a  pace  which  will  cause  them  to 
spend  very  much  money.  They  are  going  to  spend  most  of  their 
time  at  work,  and  it  will  be  an' example  for  steadiness.  Of  course, 
that  is  only  my  opinion,  but  it  looks  to  me  as  though  that  would  be 
reasonable. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Do  you  think  that  soldier  colonies  with  no  experience, 
with  no  one  to  superintend  their  activities,  would  be  a  success? 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  Not  at  all.  I  believe  with  Mr.  Davis  about 
that.  That  was  the  trouble  in  these  projects  you  have  talked  about. 

Mr.  BEN  HAM.  What  do  you  think  would  be  the  attitude  of  the 
average  soldier  boy  toward  this  Government  overseer? 


474  HOMES   FOE  SOLDIERS. 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  Well,  that  would  be  all  right.  I  think  the 
average  soldier  has  learned  a  great  deal.  He  has  been  studying.  He 
has  had  lots  of  time  to  think,  and  he  is  mighty  well  interested  in  the 
United  States  now,  and  he  is  coming  back  with  the  idea  of  getting 
into  things  and  not  just  living  from  hand  to  mouth  any  more. 

What  was  that  question  you  asked  me? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  say,  what  is  the  attitude  of  the  average  returned 
private  soldier  toward  having  a  Government  overseer  over  him  ? 

Capt.  LITTLE  JOHN.  He  will  help  him  out,  but  he  won't  stand — 

Mr.  RAKER  (interposing).  He  has  had  enough  of  orders,  hasn't  he? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  But  the  point  that  Mr.  Benham  was  trying  to  get  at. 
Major,  was  would  this  excessive  supervision  on  the  part  of  some 
Government  agent  become  irksome  to  the  settler  ? 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  No ;  because  he  would  not  have  to  have  it.  If 
you  force  it  on  him,  yes ;  but  you  have  got  to  have  a  supervisor  there 
that  will  help  the  soldier.  He  is  not  there  to  order  him  around,  and 
that  soldier,  in  my  opinion,  is  nine  times  out  of  ten  going  to  hunt 
that  man  up  and  going  to  get  the  information  from  him. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  think  that  will  be  the  attitude  of  the  soldier? 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  Yes. 

Mr.  VAILE.  It  is  not  contemplated  that  this  soldier  supervisor  AVI  11 
regulate  the  hours  of  pleasure  or  throw  the  soldier  in  jail  if  he  is  ab- 
sent without  leave  for  halt  an  hour? 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  No;  he  will  have  to  be  on  the  job.  He  will 
have  to  be  a  father,  a  big  brother  to  the  soldiers. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  He  will  have  to  be  the  same  as  the  county  agent. 
There  aren't  any  of  the  farmers  in  the  West  that  think  they  are 
under  a  slave  driver  or  anything  of  that  kind,  because  there  is  a 
county  agent  that  advises  them  as  to  the  thousand  and  one  things 
that  the  modern,  up-to-date,  scientific  farmer  needs  information 
about. 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  No. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  He  isn't  a  boss,  and  he  isn't  a  dictator;  he  is  an 
adviser. 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  He  is  an  adviser.  Another  thing,  I  don't  think 
they  would  treat  him  as  a  hired  employee  of  theirs  either.  I  think 
they  will  be  apt  to  be  very  anxious  to  help  him  as  much  as  possible. 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  takes  a  peculiar  kind  of  a  man,  of  peculiar  charac- 
teristics and  of  some  age  as  well  as  actual  practical  experience  in 
farming  to  be  a  father  to  these  men  ? 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  Yes,  indeed. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  take  a  young  man  from  25  to  35,  he  wouldn't  be 
very  much  of  a  father  to  these  boys  on  a  project  of  that  kind,  would 
he? 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  Well,  it  would  be  pretty  rare  and  hard  to  get  a 
man  of  that  age.  He  has  got  to  have  been  through  the  mill  himself 
to  be  able  to  understand  the  men  and  to  keep  his  temper  and  to  help 
them,  which  he  must  do,  if,  as  Mr.  Davis  says,  this  thing  is  going  to 
be  a  success. 

Mr.  UF.KSMAX.  I  want  to  ask  you  this  question:  Now,  assuming 
that  the  average  young  man  can  earn  $1.%200  a  year— and  that  if  he  is 
a  Dingle  man.  lie  is  able  to  save  $700  a  year,  what  would  it  be  possible 
for  a  married  man  with,  say,  one  child,  to  save,  in  comparison  to  the 
single  man? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  475 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  Well,  a  man  that  is  married  and  has  a  child,  he 
has  got  all  his  work  cut  out  for  him. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Now,  assuming  that  this  man  is  on  the  scheme  and 
that  he  saves  his  money  so  that  he  can  make  his  initial  payments. 
Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  He  will  get  that  first  of  all  from  his  salary. 
Mr.  HERSMAN.  Say  he  got  $1,500  a  year. 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  He  is  going  to  make  more  money  than  the 
single  man,  on  the  average. 
Mr.  HERSMAN.  Why? 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN/  Because  he  is  going  to  be  a  better  man,  ordi- 
narily. If  I  have  got  a  single  man  and  a  married  man,  and  they  are 
•equally  capable,  the  married  man  is  usually  the  man  that  makes  good 
a  little  better  than  the  single  man,  so  far  as  being  on  the  job  all  the 
time  and  using  his  head,  and  I  think  he  will  ordinarily.  That  is  the 
case  with  the  married  man  having  to  make  good,  and  I  think  he  will 
make  good  a  little  bit  more  than  the  man  who  is  not  married. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Do  you  think  that  at  the  end  of  the  year  he  will  be 
able  to  have  saved  up  more  money  than  the  single  man? 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  Yes;  I  think  he  will  work  much  harder  that 
that  extra  child  won't  make  any  difference.  Maybe  he  won't  save 
quite  as  much  but  I  think  he  will  make  enough  so  he  will  be  safe. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Supposing  the  single  man  is  able  to  save  $600, 
which  has  been  intimated  here,  what  could  the  married  man  with 
a  wife  and  one  child  be  able  to  do? 

Capt,  LITTLEJOHN.  Well,  I  am  not  able  to  say,  but  I  would  always 
think — I  would  almost  guarantee  that  he  would  come  out  equally 
well. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Equally  well  with  the  single  man? 
Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  Unless  he  had  a  great  big  family. 
Mr.  NICHOLS.  Major,  in  what  way  would  you  think  that  the  Gov- 
ernment is  extending  more  aid  to  a  soldier  who  has  $2,000  to  invest 
than  he  could  obtain  without  the  assistance  of  the  Government? 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  Well,  he  is  independent.  He  has  the  oppor- 
tunity of  accepting  this  or  leaving  it.  This  is  not  forced  on  him. 
This  is  for  the  man  who  has  nothing. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  What  is  the  Government  doing  for  the  man  who  has 
$2,000  to  make  this  initial  payment? 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  Well,  the  man  with  the  $2,000  has  the  same 
opportunity  as  the  man  that  hasn't  got  a  cent,  hasn't  he,  on  this  deal? 
He  is  $2,000  ahead,  that  is  all.  That  is  his  pass.  I  don't  think  that 
that  should  apply  to  this  at  all. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Well,  this  man  must  earn  the  $2,000  to  invest. 
Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  Yes. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  He  earn  that.  That  is  his  investment  in  the  land. 
Xow,  in  what  way  is  the  Government  giving  him  anything  more  than 
it  is  giving  any  man,  any  soldier,  that  has  $2,000  to  invest,  any  more 
than  he  could  get  from  private  enterprise? 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  Well,  I  don't  know  that  he  gets  any  more  than 
he  gets  from  private  enterprise,  but  he  has  got  this  big  extra  enter- 
prise open  to  him.  He  don't  have  to  go  down  to  the  city  and  work 
by  the  day  for  maybe  a  year  or  two ;  he  can  go  right  there  and  go 
to  work. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  The  Director  of  the  Reclamation  Service  made  the 
statement  to-day  that  so  far  there  is  not  the  apparent  shortage  in 


476  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

the  labor  market  that  was  anticipated,  and  therefore  it  is  not  a  great 
question  of  providing  employment. 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  Well,  at  the  same  time,  whether  that  is  true 
or  not,  that  doesn't  interfere  with  he  fact  that  his  is  an  oppor- 
tunity for  the  man  that  hasn't  got  a  cent  and  who  can  see  a  proposi- 
tion ahead  of  him  without  any  new  lights  of  his  own. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  According  to  the  Director,  a  man  can  find  employ- 
ment anywhere  now. 

Capt.  LITTLE  JOHN.  Well,  if  he  finds  employment,  that  is  all  right. 
I  don't  think  myself  that  he  can,  because  I  think  that  what  the 
director  said  at  the  end  was  true,  that  there  is  going  to  be  a  great 
number  of  men  coming  in  here  at  the  time  when  the  harvest  is  ended 
and  who  will  want  to  start  on  construction  work.  Now,  private 
enterprise  is  not  going  to — at  least,  we  are  not  sure  that  private 
enterprise  is  going  to  go  ahead.  That  is,  you  and  I  are  not  going 
to  start  putting  up  our  buildings,  or  our  dams,  or  the  other  things. 
Here  is  something  that  has  started,  something  definite,  and  that  will 
take  care  of  a  great  number  of  men. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  In  your  opinion,  there  will  be  a  great  many  soldiers 
who  would  be  glad  to  avail  themselves  of  this  opportunity,  this 
kind  of  employment? 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  Absolutely. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  there  are  no  further  questions,  we  thank  you 
very  much  for  your  statement.  Captain. 

Capt.  LITTLEJOHN.  I  am  very  glad  to  have  been  of  any  help  at  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Without  objection,  I  would  like  to  have  attached 
to  Mr.  Davis's  testimony  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Elwood  Meade  on  this 
matter.  We  are  unable  to  get  him  here.  This  testimony  of  Dr. 
Meade  was  given  before  the  Appropriation  Committee  of  the  House 
at  the  last  session. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  think  it  ought  to  be  done.    We  would  like  to  have  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then  without  objection,  that  will  be  done. 

Without  objection  we  will  adjourn  now  until  10  o'clock  to-morrow 
morning. 

(Whereupon  at  1  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  committee  adjourned  until  10 
o'clock  a.  m.,  Thursday,  June  12,  1919.) 


COMMITTEE  ON  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS. 

HOUSE  or  REPRESENTATIVES. 
Washington,  D.  C.,  Thursday,  June  12,  1919. 
The  committee  this  day  met,  Hon.  N.  J.  Sinnott  (chairman),  pre- 
siding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen,  the  committee  will  come  to  order.  Mr. 
Lay! on,  of  Delaware,  will  favor  us  with  a  statement  before  Mr. 
Davis  goes  on,  as  he  is  in  a  hurry. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  CALEB  RIDLEY  LAYTON,  A  REPRESENTA- 
TIVE IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  DELAWARE. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee.  1 
have  nothing  specific  to  offer,  but  my  observations  will  be  necessarily 
of  n  •j-eneral  character.  I  think  we  are  all  agreed  that  we  owe  some- 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  477 

thing  to  the  soldier,  and  the  idea  has  been  to  find  out  how  we  should 
discharge  that  obligation.  I  have  made  it  a  point  before  I  came 
down  here,  with  my  own  constituent  soldiery,  and  I  have  made  it 
a  point  every  time  I  have  been  on  a  street  car,  if  I  got  the  oppor- 
tunity, to  speak  to  a  boy  in  khaki  to  find  out  what  his  idea  was. 

These  seems  to  be  two  different  general  plans.  One  is  a  sum  of 
money  in  cash,  another  is  this  land  proposition.  Of  course,  I  am 
unhesitatingly  against  the  cash  proposition  for  this  reason,  that,  in 
my  judgment,  any  sum  of  money  that  the  Government  could  afford 
to  tax  the  country  for,  whether  it  was  $500,  $600,  or  $1,000, 
would  be  lost  in  six  months,  in  my  judgment,  to  90  per  cent  of  the 
recipients  of  that  sum,  whatever  it  might  be,  and  would  do  no  good, 
but  you  would  be  doing  a  moral  and  mental  harm,  in  my  judgment, 
to  the  soldier. 

The  other  proposition  also,  to  my  mind,  has  its  disadvantages.  I 
do  not  believe  it  will  work  out  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  concep- 
tion, for  this  reason,  that  50  per  cent  of  all  of  the  soldiers,  no  matter 
what  form  of  service  they  were  in,  came  from  the  cities  and  have 
no  knowledge  of  country  life,  and  no  desire,  really,  for  country  life. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Two-thirds  of  them  came  from  cities. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  I  am  trying  to  be  moderate,  as  I  always  am  when  I 
make  a  statement.  Fifty  per  cent  of  the  balance  will  go  back  by 
choice  to  their  homes,  to  their  father's  farm,  or  to  their  own  land. 
I  am  speaking  now  from  the  knowledge  that  I  have  of  the  rural 
district  where  I  live.  There  will  be  at  least  50  per  cent  of  that  50 
per  cent  that  will  have  land  to  go  back  to,  homestead  land  of  their 
own,  or  their  families.  That  will  leave  only  about  25  per  cent,  a 
problematical  25  per  cent,  to  take  advantage  of  this  proposition. 

On  the  whole,  after  looking  it  over,  I  have  come  to  the  conclusion, 
however,  that  this  is  the  most  feasible  way  of  meeting  a  public  de- 
mand, because  the  money,  if  expended,  will  do  a  great  public  good, 
whether  the  soldier  takes  advantage  of  it  or  not.  It  will  bring  into 
the  production  field,  so  to  speak,  hundreds  of  thousands  of  acres  of 
land  which  will  furnish  this  country  with  foodstuffs  which  we  do 
not  seem  to  have  enough  of  now,  with  the  prices  as  they  are,  and 
help  to  do  that  one  thing  which,  in  my  judgment,  lies  at  the  basis 
of  peace  among  any  people,  and  that  is  cheap  living. 

In  my  judgment,  to-day  the  greatest  problem  in  the  country  is  to 
break  down  the  prices  of  the  cost  of  living.  It  lies  at  the  basis,  in 
my  judgment,  of  all  of  the  unrest  in  the  country,  and  lies  as  a  funda- 
mental problem  in  the  adjustment  between  capital  and  labor.  There 
is  no  such  thing  as  bringing  labor  down  to  a  proper  condition  where 
the  industrialism  of  this  country  can  live,  unless  you  make  living 
cheaper.  As  long  as  you  are  paying  65  cents  for  bacon,  and  paying 
what  you  are  paying  for  wheat  and  everything  in  proportion,  you 
can  not  bring  labor  down  and  you  ought  not  to  bring  it  down.  That 
is  all  there  is  about  it. 

The  farmer,  to  a  certain  extent,  is  opposed  to  this  proposition, 
because  he  thinks  it  is  going  to  be  a  factor  in  reducing  the  cost  of  his 
products.  Well,  that  would  be  so,  in  my  judgment,  if  all  of  these 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  acres  of  land  were  to  be  dumped  suddenly 
in  the  productive  field,  but  a  thought  will  disclose  that  this  will  go 
along,  and  it  will  be  a  long  time  before  all  of  this  laud  can  l.o 
brought  into  competition  with  land  that  is  already  producing;  it 


478  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

will  be  a  long  time,  and  it  will  come  in  gradually,  and  will  not  dis- 
turb, practically,  in  my  judgment,  taking  into  consideration  the 
fecundity  of  the  race,  the  necessary  increase  of  population — it  will 
not  disturb  it  at  all,  in  my  judgment,  as  he  apprehends. 

I  have  only  one  more  thought.  This  is  a  little  personal — that  is 
personal  as  far  as  my  representative  character  is  concerned — and 
that  is  this :  If  this  bill  goes  before  the  Congress,  I  hope  it  will  be 
so  drawn  that  the  little  State  that  I  represent  can  get  more  equity 
than  it  has  gotten  before.  There  was  a  bill,  if  I  understand  it,  and 
you  can  correct  me  because  you  are  more  au  fait  than  I  am  in  the 
matter,  which  provided  for  good  roads  recently,  divided  among  the 
States;  is  not  that  true? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Two  or  three  years  ago. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  Two  or  three  years  ago? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  Well,  was  there  not  a  bill  up  before  this  last  session 
of  Congress  for  the  same  purpose? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  TILLMAN.  In  the  post  office  appropriation  bill  $200,000,000 
was  provided  for  public  roads  in  this  last  session. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  That  is  what  I  am  referring  to.  In  that  appro- 
priation Delaware  was  to  have  $400,000,  which  would  only  build 
about  10  miles  of  road,  yet  Delaware  was  paying  more  income  taxes, 
where  that  money  was  coming  from,  by  $100,000  than  nine  South- 
ern States  put  together. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  money  had  to  be  matched,  Mr.  Layton,  by 
State  money,  as  I  understand  it. 

Mr.  TILLMAN.  Fifty-fifty. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  Yes;  that  might  be  true  in  a  way.  We  could  match 
it,  as  far  as  that  is  concerned,  but  what  I  am  trying  to  get  at  is  that 
I  hope  that  the  bill  will  be  equitable,  and  if  Delaware  is  paying  into 
the  Federal  Treasury  more  money  than  nine  Southern  States  put 
together,  it  ought  to  have  a  net  return  on  her  swamp-land  improve- 
ment, because  that  is  what  it  is  going  to  amount  to,  gentlemen. 

I  say  to  you  frankly  that  this  measure  can  go  through,  and  I  am 
going  to  help  put  it  through,  because  it  is  the  best  that  I  have  got  as 
an  alternative,  but  really  this  land  will  go  to  the  general  public,  and 
it  will  not  go  to  the  soldier  at  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  suppose  you  have  available  lands  in  your  State 
and  available  projects? 

Mr.  LAYTON.  Yes;  they  have  got  30.000  acres  of  land  right  in  my 
county  now  that  is  not  under  cultivation,  nothing  but  swamp  land, 
and  it  would  be  a  glorious  thing  under  the  sun  if  I  could  get  it- 
drained.  I  must  confess  I  have  not  been  able  to  do  it  by  the  State 
of  Delaware  alone.  Our  legislature  refused  this  last  winter  to  create 
a  drainage  commission  for  the  purpose.  I  have  been  fighting  for 
drainage  for  the  last  30  years,  I  expect;  it  is  a  kind  of  a  hobby  of 
mine.  With  that  remark,  that  I  hope  the  bill  will  be  so  drawn  as 
to  approximate  equity  according  to  the  amount  of  money  that  the 
little  State  of  Delaware  is  contributing  toward  this  great  and  all 
other  enterprises,  I  have  concluded. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  bill  provides  for  the  construction  of  a  project 
in  each  State. 

Mr.  L AVION.  Yes;  in  each  State. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  479 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  each  State  one  or  more  projects. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  How  is  the  selection  of  the  projects  and  the  size  of 
the  project  to  be  determined? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  in  consulta- 
tion with  the  governor  of  your  State  and  a  member  of  the  Federal 
P'arm  Loan  Board,  will  determine.  The  terms  of  taking  over  the 
project  have  to  be  approved  by  the  governor  of  your  State  and  a 
member  of  the  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  Well,  that  will  be  perfectly  satisfactory. 

Mr.  B ARBOUR.  In  talking  with  several  Members  of  the  House.  I 
have  found  that  there  is  a  good  deal  of  hostility  to  this  bill,  for  the 
reason,  as  stated  by  them,  that  we  are  attempting  to  provide  for  only 
the  farmer  soldiers  who  may  return,  or  the  soldiers  who  want  to  be 
farmers,  and  we  are  not  attempting  to  provide  for  the  fellow  who  does 
not  want  to  be  a  farmer,  and  therefore  wre  are  not  playing  fair;  that 
instead  of  benefiting  all  the  soldiers,  we  are  only  benefiting  a  small 
percentage,  and  some  of  the  Members  of  the  House  are  against  it  for 
that  reason.  I  would  like  to  have  your  opinion  on  that. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  I  stated  that,  did  I  not,  practically,  in  my  remarks, 
that  50  per  cent  wrould  be  in  the  cities  and  have  no  predilection  what- 
ever for  this  project,  as  far  as  their  personal  desires  are  concerned? 
I  think  that  hits  it. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  What  do  you  think  of  that  proposition?  Do  you 
not  think  that  we  indirectly  benefit  the  man  in  the  city  who  does  not 
want  to  go  on  a  farm? 

Mr.  LAYTON.  Yes;  you  indirectly  benefit  him,  and  I  will  give  an- 
other answer  to  that,  and  that  is  this,  if  you  attempt  to  segregate 
these  two  interests,  the  urban  and  the  agrarian  interests,  you  will 
leave  a  good  many  of  those  who  would  naturally  have  an  agrarian 
interest  to  be  damned  by  the  cash  proposition  handed  out  to  them 
and  defeat  the  other.  You  can  not  separate  them,  and  you  ought  not 
to  try.  God  Almighty  does  not  do  it.  WTien  He  rains  on  my  cabbage 
patch  that  needs  a  nice  rain,  and  rains  on  my  neighbor's  hay  adjoin- 
ing, He  is  not  treating  us  both  right,  and  you  can  not  do  it  in  legis- 
lation or  anything  else. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Does  not  the  vocational  training  that  is  being  given 
to  all  disabled  soldiers,  during  which  time  they  are  allowed  $60 
per  month  for  maintenance  over  and  above  their  educational  advan- 
tages, partly  answer  that  question? 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Possibly,  yes. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  If  you  will  excuse  me  on  that,  I  will  just  detail  a  little 
conversation  I  had  less  than  an  hour  ago  coming  down  on  the  car 
with  a  soldier.  He  was  a  stranger  to  me,  and  I  did  not  know  any- 
thing about  him,  but  he  had  a  nice,  bright,  clean  face,  and  I  brought 
the  subject  up.  Unhesitatingly,  he  said,  "I  am  opposed  to  the  cash 
proposition.  The  good,  decent  soldier  does  not  want  any  money  in 
that  way.  It  detracts  from  his  patriotism  and  the  glory  that  he  has 
gotten  out  of  this  war."  I  am  in  favor  of  this  land  proposition, 
whether  it  ultimately  works  out  as  it  is  desired,  so  that  the  boy  goes 
upon  the  land.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  will  do  it  or  not,  but  that 
proposition,  in  my  judgment,  will  safeguard  the  Government  and 
will  not  cause  ultimately  any  increase  of  taxation,  because  it  will 
come  back  to  the  Government  sooner  or  later,  and  m  the  meantime 
the  good  soldier  boy  who  is  sober  and  industrious  will  have  an  op- 

133319—39 31 


480  HOMES  FOK  SOLDIERS. 

portunity  to  go  out  on  these  various  sections  all  over  the  country  and 
be  employed,  and  in  that  way  you  will  let  things  down  gradually 
from  a  war  to  a  peace  basis  by  taking  care  of  a  multitude  of  sol- 
diers by  jobs  that  they  otherwise  could  not  get  in  industrial  life.  I 
just  give  you  that  thought. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  thank  you. 

Mr.  LAYTQN.  I  am  much  obliged  to  you  gentlemen  for  the  hearing. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Director  Davis  is  here  this  morning,  and  Mr. 
Taylor  desires  to  ask  a  few  question  of  Director  Davis. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  ARTHUR  P.  DAVIS,  DIRECTOR  OF  THE 
RECLAMATION  SERVICE. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  want  to  say,  Mr.  Chairman  and  fellow  members  of 
the  committee,  that  I  apprehended  that  if  this  bill  comes  up  for  con- 
sideration on  the  floor  of  the  House,  there  are  some  of  the  people  who 
are  opposed  to  the  measure,  and  there  are  going  to  be  a  good  many 
of  them,  especially  some  of  those  that  have  always  been  opposed  to 
the  Reclamation  Service,  who  are  going  to  hold  up  as  a  bugaboo  the 
cost  per  acre  to  the  Government,  or,  rather,  to  the  settlers,  under 
those  30  odd  reclamation  projects,  whether  it  is  $50,  $75,  or  $100, 
and  I  wanted  Mr.  Davis  to  state,  not  only  for  the  benefit  of  this 
committee,  but  for  the  benefit  of  the  record  and  the  House,  a  parallel 
between  the  reclamation  projects  as  they  have  been  developed  dur- 
ing the  last  17  years,  and  this  proposed  reclamation  project  of  aban- 
doned lands,  or  partially  abandoned  lands,  and  cut-over  lands  and 
swamp  lands  of  the  South,  the  North,  and  throughout  the  entire 
country.  It  is  my  rough  estimate  that  probably  90  per  cent  of  all 
of  the  cost  of  the  reclamation  of  the  public  lands  in  the  arid  country 
is  by  reason  of  the  necessity  of  irrigating  them,  and  there  is  no 
necessity  of  that  on  any  of  these  lands,  outside  of  the  West,  that  we 
propose  to  handle  in  this  bill.  The  great  expense  that  the  Reclama- 
tion Service  has  caused  to  the  settlers  under  our  projects  in  the 
Western  States  we  are  not  here  complaining  about,  but  if  anybody 
else,  wyho  does  not  have  to  push  the  bill  is  complaining  about  it,  I 
want  to  know  the  difference  between  what  we  are  undertaking  in 
this  bill,  so  far  as  the  rest  of  the  country  is  concerned,  and  what  wo 
are  undertaking  in  the  West. 

If  we  have  had  to  pay  $100  an  acre,  or  $75  an  acre  for  the  land, 
it  is  because  that  money  has  gone  into  tremendous  dams,  the  biggest 
dams  in  the  world,  and  gone  into  canals  100  miles  long,  and  gone 
into  hundreds  of  latterals,  and  gone  into  the  buying  of  water  rights, 
and  all  sorts  of  things,  the  concreting  of  whole  canals  for  50  miles, 
possibly,  and  I  think  the  Reclamation  Service  ought  to  show  a  par- 
allel between  that  expense,  as  compared  to  that  involved  in  the 
reclamation  of  these  cut-over  lands,  for  the  benefit  of  this  bill  ^lu-n 
it,  reaches  the  House.  That  has  not  yet  been  done,  and  I  think  it 
ought  to  be  done. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  stated  the  cost  a  little  bit  too  high,  I 
think. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Possibly  I  have;  but  suppose  they  say  that  is  the 
fact?  They  are  going  to  try  to  make  it  appear  to  the  House  that 
the  Reclamation  Service  is  probably  going  to  put  as  big  a  cost  on  a 
piece  of  land  here  within  10  miles  of  Washington,  as  we  have  to  pay 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  481 

out  in  the  West,  and  we  do  not  want  to  have  to  combat  that  with  a 
lot  of  argument.  This  committee  is  not  an  irrigation  committee, 
Mr.  Chairman,  you  and  I  and  the  gentleman  from  Idaho,  Mr.  Smith, 
and  Mr.  Raker  have  been  sitting  on  the  irrigation  committee  for 
years  and  years,  but  this  committee  has  never  had  anything  to  do 
with  irrigation  before,  and  it  is  not  an  irrigation  committee.  This 
is  a  public  lands  committee,  and  for  that  reason  I  feel  that  this  com- 
mittee, which  has  never  yet  had  anything  under  heaven  to  do  with 
irrigation,  ought  to  start  by  getting  right  with  the  irrigation  matter 
that  is  coming  before  them.  I  feel  that  is  something  that  ought  to 
go  in  the  record  here  in  a  way  that  we  will  not  have  to  defend  the 
Reclamation  Service  on  the  floor  of  the  House. 

Xow,  with  that  little  preliminary  statement,  Mr.  Davis,  I  wish 
you  would  give  a  brief  description  in  the  record,  for  the  record  and 
for  the  House,  as  well  as  for  this  committee,  as  to  how  the  work  that 
the  Reclamation  Service  has  heretofore  been  doing  in  developing  the 
West  for  the  past  17  years  will  compare  with  this  reclamation  work, 
of  swamp  lands  and  cut-OA^er  lands  and  abandoned  lands  throughout 
the  entire  United  States,  and  show  wherein  the  cost  will  be  different 
and  wherein  it  will  be  the  same,  and  show  wherein  your  machinery 
of  the  Reclamation  Service  will  apply,  and  give  us  some  estimate  as 
to  what,  in  all  probability,  will  be  the  expense  per  acre  that  these 
boys  will  have  to  pay  in  40-year  payments  at  4  per  cent  back  to  the 
Government  for  this  land.  I  think  that  is  something  we  ought  to 
have  in  the  record,  so  that  the  House  and  the  country  will  know 
something  about  what  we  are  really  figuring  on. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Just  one  question,  Mr.  Taylor.  It  is  not  my  under- 
standing, from  a  close  reading  of  the  bill,  that  the  boys  are  to  pay  for 
the  expense  of  putting  this  land  under  cultivation  and  the  improve- 
ment of  the  land,  but  to  pay  as  near  as  practicable  the  market  value 
of  the  land,  and  if  it  should  cost  the  Government  a  good  deal  more 
than  it  is  really  worth,  it  is  not  my  understanding  from  a  reading  of 
the  bill,  that  the  boys  will  be  required  to  pay  the  expense  of  it.  In 
fact,  the  bill  does  not  say  that.  It  says  to  pay  as  near  as  practicable 
the  reasonable  market  value  of  the  land. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Supposing,  Mr.  Johnson,  that  we  buy  this  land  for  $6 
an  acre  or  $10  an  acre?  We  are  going  to  get  it  very  cheap  in  most 
cases,  but  supposing  it  is  covered  densely  with  stumps?  That  land 
has  got  to  be  cleared  by  removing  the  stumps,  and  whether  it  costs 
$6  or  $10  an  acre  to  blow  out  the  stumps  and  level  that  ground  and 
put  it  in  shape,  my  understanding  is  that  that  necessary  expense  on 
that  land,  whether  it  is  in  clearing  it,  or  whether  it  is  in  draining  it,  is 
to  be  added  to  the  original  purchase  price  and  to  be  covered  back  ulti- 
mately into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Yes;  as  near  as  practicable  the  reasonable  market 
value  of  the  land  at  the  time  it  is  sold  to  him. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Surely,  but  that  market  value  will  include  the  ex- 
pense of  clearing  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  that  is  not  the  general  market  value,  because 
this  land  may  cost  $40  to  put  into  cultivation.  The  general  market 
value  of  that  land  might  be  $80.  It  is  not  contemplated  that  the 
soldier  will  have  to  pay  the  general  market  value  of  the  land,  but 
there  is  some  vague  language  in  the  bill  that  ought  to  be  cleared  up. 


482  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Mr.  Johnson,  you  do  not  mean  that  he  will  have 
to  pay  the  market  value  of  the  land,  because  the  market  value,  we 
figure,  will  be  four  times  what  it  cost.  We  want  to  include  some 
reimbursement,  but  we  want  the  soldier  to  get  the  benefit  of  the 
increased  value  that  is  occasioned  by  the  community,  by  the  settle- 
ment, and  by  the  development  of  the  project. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I  have  no  disposition  to  argue  it.  I  just  wanted 
to  make  that  statement. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Mr.  Davis,  I  think,  has  the  idea. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Mr.  Chairman,  as  I  understand  this  bill,  section  (> 
provides  as  follows : 

That  sale  prices  shall  be  fixed  with  a  view  of  repaying  the  total  cost  of 
each  project,  and  the  price  fixed  for  each  farm,  tract,  or  lot  shall  represent 
as  nearly  as  practicable  its  relative  and  comparative  selling  value. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Line  7,  section  6,  is  what  I  have  reference  to. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  read  only  one  sentence,  and  the  sentence,  of  course, 
lias  to  be  considered  as  a  whole,  and  it  appears  to  me  to  bo  the 
purpose  of  this  bill  to  have  the  total  cost  of  each  project  repaid, 
and  as  to  how  that  cost  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  farms,  it 
shall  be  done  in  accordance  with  the  relative  value. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  They  shall  be  graded  according  to  quality. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  They  shall  be  graded  according  to  quality  and  location 
with  reference  to  the  project.  That  authority  is  also  in  the  recla- 
mation act.  The  reclamation  act  provides  for  the  return  of  the 
cost  of  the  projects,  and  provides  that  the  lands  shall  be  assessed 
equitably.  The  language  here  is  a  little  more  specific  than  in  the 
reclamation  act,  because  the  gentleman  who  drew  the  bill  desired 
to  have  it  a  little  plainer,  and  I  think  it  is  very  clear,  as  I  understand 
it.  I  do  not  see  how  there  could  be  any  very  great  difference  of 
opinion  on  that,  especially  as  explained  by  Mr.  Mondell,  who 
appeared  before  the  committee. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Right  along  the  line  of  your  statement  and  the  sug- 
gestion of  Mr.  Taylor,  would  it  be  possible  to  furnish  each  member 
of  the  committee  with  a  copy  of  the  reclamation  act? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Surely. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  In  pamphlet  form,  so  we  will  not  have  to  dig  it  out 
ourselves  ? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  If  published  it  will  be  published  in  pamphlet  form. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  That  is  what  I  referred  to. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Will  you  have  sent  to  each  member  of  the  com- 
mittee one  of  those  pamphlets  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Go  ahead,  Mr.  Davis,  and  give  us  a  kind  of  parallel 
picture,  taking  the  average  form  of  stump  land  or  of  swamp  land, 
as  to  what  will  be  the  difference  between  the  reclamation  of  that,  in 
cost  to  the  settler,  and  what  it  has  been  to  the  people  in  the  West. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  In  general,  the  cost  of  reclamation  by  other  methods 
than  irrigation,  and  there  are  many  which  I  have  enumerated  in 
former  testimony,  will  be  considerablv  less  than  most  of  the  reclama- 
tion by  irrigation.  Reclamation  by  irrigation  involves  a  great  deal 
more  expensive  works  than  the  other  classes,  and  has  been  in  progress 
for  two  generations  in  this  country;  and.  prior  to  (he  passage  of  the 
rerlamalion  ad,  all  of  the  easy,  cheap  projects  had  been  constructed, 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  48  3 

and  in  doing  that  private  capital  had  been  in  th?  main  invested. 
As  the  easy  projects  have  been  developed  and  the  harder  ones 
tackled,  the  district  system  was  invoked,  and  large  corporations  also, 
to  furnish  financial  assistance.  Very  few  irrigation  investments, 
have  been  profitable  to  the  investors.  They  have  be?n  very  beneficial 
to  the  country  and  to  the  settlers  in  most  cases,  but  the  heavy  ex- 
penses of  large  engineering  works,  as  undertaken  by  larg.j  aggrega- 
tions of  capital,  has  been  such  that  the  interest  would  usually  eat 
up  the  profits  before  the  land  was  completely  developed.  That  was 
the  reason  for  the  passage  of  the  reclamation  act,  so  that  the  public 
funds  and  the  public  interests  could  be  brought  in  for  the  purpose 
of  developing  those  lands,  so  that  the  public  benefits  that  flow  from 
this  should  be  stood  by  the  public  in  the  matter  of  interest. 

Now,  interest  charges  are  to  be  paid  under  this  bill,  with  the  re- 
clamation as  carried  on.  That  is  one  thing  we  must  take  into  con- 
sideration; and,  so  far  as  the  physical  work  of  reclamation  is  con- 
cerned, there  are  large  opportunities  in  all  of  the  States  that  I 
know  of  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  country,  where  irrigation  is  not 
required,  there  are  large  opportunities  that  can  be  carried  out  much 
more  cheaply  than  future  irrigation  and  recent  irrigation  works  can 
be  carried  out,  because  they  are  simple.  Not  only  do  new  irrigation 
projects  require  heavy  engineering  works  in  placing  water  upon  the 
land  and  in  operating  those  works  every  year,  but  in  many  cases, 
probably  50  per  cent  of  the  area,  requires  also  drainage,  and  drain- 
age works  of  an  expensive  character  have  been,  and  are  now  being, 
constructed  by  the  Reclamation  Service.  We  have  large  works  of  that 
character  going  on  along  the  Rio  Grande  in  New  Mexico,  in  Texas,  in 
Idaho,  and  in  various  other  parts  of  the  country  where  the  rise  of 
the  water  table  caused  by  irrigation  has  produced  conditions  such 
that  drainage  works  have  to  be  provided,  and  that  is  the  rule  witli 
irrigation  throughout  the  world.  I  know  of  no  large  irrigated  valley 
in  the  world,  that  has  been  irrigated  for  any  length  of  time,  but 
what  has  encountered  this  drainage  problem. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Those  are  expenses  that  are  not  incident  to  the 
cleared  land  and  the  swamp  land  either,  are  they? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  swamp  land  will  have  to  be  drained,  but  the  water 
is  already  there  and  the  irrigation  expense  will  not  be  added.  A 
great  many  of  the  lands  which  will  be  available  under  this  bill  will 
require  drainage.  Some  of  them  would  not  be  classed  as  swamp 
lands,  but  they  should  be  drained  in  many  cases,  and  that,  as  a  rule, 
will  be  cheaper  than  irrigation,  and  even  where  they  have  to  be  both 
cleared  of  timber  and  drained,  as  a  rule,  it  will  be  cheaper  than  ir- 
rigation. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Do  you  mean  to  say  you  could  clear  off  stump  land 
cheaper  than  you  could  reclaim  land  by  irrigation  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Some  of  it. 

Mr.  SMITH.  That  certainly  is  not  true  except  where  the  timber  is 
very  small. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes ;  that  is  true. 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  costs  up  in  northern  Idaho,  for  instance,  $100  an 
acre  to  take  stumps  out  of  the  land. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes;  and  in  northwestern  Washington  it  costs  $200, 
$300,  and  sometimes  $500  an  acre. 


484  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  probably  would  not  undertake  to  clear  such 
land? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No,  sir.  There  are  in  the  East  and  South  and  North, 
other  than  arid  lands,  plenty  of  lands  that  would  be  very  expensive 
for  clearing  and  draining.  Those  are  not  the  lands  that  would  be 
selected  for  reclamation,  of  course.  But  there  are  large  areas,  and  the 
opportunities  throughout  the  eastern  States  are  such  that  we  have  a 
chance  of  selection  that  is  much  superior  to  the  present  choice  of 
selection  of  irrigation  projects.  The  problem  of  clearing  is  one  that 
grades  all  the  way  from  $5  or  $10  up  to  a  sum  which  is  entirely 
beyond  the  bounds  of  feasibility,  and  it  means  a  careful,  judicious 
selection  of  the  projects,  after  due  examination. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  In  that  connection,  have  we  not  our  disposal  at  the 
present  time  from  the  War  Department  a  large  quantity  of  T.  N.  T. 
that  may  be  used  for  that  purpose  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  And  is  not  that  enough  to  be  available  for  this  pur- 
pose at  a  very  nominal  expense? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  will  be  available  under  whatever  law  it  can  be  trans- 
ferred. I  understand  the  law  provides  that  the  materials  and  the 
equipment  on  hand  in  the  War  Department,  no  longer  needed  by  that 
department  for  war  purposes,  may  be  transferred,  and  must  be  trans- 
ferred, if  needed,  to  other  departments  at  a  reasonable  price,  and  I 
understand  that  that  is  an  executive  function  to  determine  what  is  a 
reasonable  price  in  each  individual  case. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Are  they  not  right  now  turning  over  a  large  amount 
of  road  equipment  and  trucks  and  all  sorts  of  things  from  that  de- 
partment and  shipping  them  out  now  to  the  various  States  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  They  are  offering  such  equipment  to  us  for  sale.  I  pre- 
sume it  will  be  as  cheap  or  cheaper  than  we  could  buy  it  in  the  open 
market,  but  the  policy,  as  I  understand  it  now,  and  the  provision  of 
law,  as  well  as  an  executive  order,  provides  that  it  shall  be  transferred 
at  a  reasonable  price. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  do  not  know  what  the  T.  N.  T.  is  going  to  cost  the 
Reclamation  Service  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No;  but  it  probably  can  be  transferred  a  little  bit 
cheaper  than  dynamite;  I  do  not  know.  It  is  of  about  the  same 
value.  It  is  in  some  respects  safer,  and  in  some  respects  a  little 
harder  to  handle. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Have  they  not  methods  now  of  connecting  up  stump 
land,  for  instance,  by  using  one  of  these  compressed  drills  and  put- 
ting in  a  stick  of  T.  N.  T.  and  connecting  it  with  a  wire  and  blowing 
up  a  whole  acre  or  more  at  one  time,  and  doing  it  comparatively 
cheap. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  can  be  done.  There  are  many  methods  of  re- 
claiming stump  land.  In  one  place  one  method  will  be  advisable, 
and  in  another  place  another,  and  each  problem  of  clearing  will 
have  to  be  considered  on  its  own  merits.  For  example,  to  illustrate, 
one  scheme  in  the  handling  of  cut-over  lands  that  I  described  the 
other  day  in  Massachusetts,  many  portions  of  that,  probably  95  per 
cent  of  it,  can  be  cleared  by  a  large  tractor  simply  pulling  a  large, 
powerful  plow,  and  plowing  that  brush  up.  It  is  bigger  than  the 
sagebrush  of  the  West,  but  not  much  bigger.  Of  course,  the  tops 
would  have  to  be  cut  out  of  the  way  to  get  the  machinery  through, 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  485 

and  some  of  it  has  been  cleared  in  that  way,  with  not  great  suc- 
cess, but  I  am  satisfied  that  larger  and  heavier  and  more  powerful 
machinery  would  make  that  method  the  cheapest  in  that  particular 
case.  We  would  leave  a  number  of  the  stumps  that  would  have  to 
be  pulled  by  the  stump  puller  or  blown  out,  but  the  smaller  stumps 
would  be  pulled  by  the  tractor  by  hitching  it  directly  on,  and  the 
larger  ones  it  may  be  advisable  to  blow  up,  and  still  larger  ones, 
making  a  great  deal  of  expense  in  excavation,  and  so  we  have  all 
grades,  from  those  costing  a  great  deal  more  than  the  land  will  be 
worth  after  it  is  cleared  to  those  that  are  not  much  harder  to  clear 
than  the  western  sagebrush,  which  you  know  can  be  done  for  $3 
to  $5  an  acre. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  wish,  Mr.  Davis,  that  you  would  make  it  as  posi- 
tive as  possible  in  this  record  that  this  is  not  a  sectional  measure, 
and  will  not  be  looked  upon  or  treated  by  you,  as  the  head  of  the 
Reclamation  Service,  if  you  are  put  in  charge,  as  a  sectional  matter, 
but  that  it  is  a  matter  for  the  entire  United  States,  and  to  be  made 
readily  available  for  every  boy  that  served  in  our  Army,  as  far  as 
they  want  to  go.. 

•Mr.  DAVIS.  TThat  is  the  way  I  view  it,  absolutely,  and  your  sug- 
gestion is  in  line  with  the  (question  asked  by  the  gentleman  from 
Oklahoma,  who  I  am  sorry  is  not  here  now,  the  answer  to  which  I 
desire  somewhat  to  amplify.  He  made  the  suggestion  that  in  States 
where  feasible  projects,  under  the  plan  outlined  in  the  bill,  were  not 
found,  it  should  be  provided  that  loans  could  be  made  on  individual 
farms,  and  my  answer  was  that,  of  course,  was  in  the  discre- 
tion of  Congress,  but  if  that  were  to  be  done,  it  was  so  closely  in 
line  with  the  existing  machinery  and  function  of  the  Federal  Farm 
Loan  Board  that  they  should  have  the  handling  of  it  and  have  the 
authority,  so  we  would  not  build  duplicate  organizations  for  the 
same  purpose.  But  I  want  to  amplify  that  to  this  extent :  We  have 
plenty  of  information  to  know  that  there  are  feasible  projects  in 
every  State  in  the  Union,  provided  we  have  proper  and  reasonable 
local  cooperation,  and  that  is  one  reason,  Mr.  Chairman,  why  I 
specifically  oppose  and  object  to  any  legislation  restricting  the  places 
where  this  money  is  to  be  spent  any  more  than  this  bill  does,  which 
requires  that  there  shall  be  one  or  more  projects  in  each  State,  if 
feasible  projects  can  be  found. 

Xow.  if  there  is  an  absolute  restriction  that  we  must  spend  money 
in  a  certain  State,  we  will  not  have  that  local  cooperation,  because 
they  will  say,  "  The  law  requires  you  to  take  this  up,  and  you  have 

fot  to  do  it  anyhow."  That  was  our  experience,  and  it  was  the  mis- 
Drtune  of  Oregon  that  that  provision  in  the  reclamation  law  was 
incorporated  by  a  Representative  from  that  State,  requiring  a  ma- 
jority of  the  funds  received  in  any  State  to  be  spent  in  that  State, 
if  feasible  projects  could  be  found.  Every  community  has  all  kinds 
of  people  in  it,  and  any  project  of  this  kind  or  any  other  kind  can 
not  be  taken  up  unless  it  has  reasonable  local  cooperation,  and  in 
many  cases  there  is  strong  local  pressure  to  prevent  those  who  have 
the  power  from  standing  in  the  way  of  public  development. 

An  illustration  of  that  is  what  we  had  in  the  Yakima  Valley  in 
Washington.  There,  as  you  gentlemen  know  who  are  acquainted 
with  our  work,  we  have  a  very  fine  development,  two  subprojects  of 


486  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

that  Yakima  project,  and  the  land  is  highly  developed  now,  although 
it  was  formerly  very  bad. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  What  State  is  that  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yakima,  in  the  State  of  Washington.  When  we  went 
in  there  the  State,  as  a  State,  was  in  a  very  cooperative  attitude,  and 
so  were  the  public-spirited  people.  The  State  passed  a  laAv  giving 
the  Government  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  the  waters  of  that  basin, 
and  the  right  to  build  reservoirs  on  the  lakes  which  belonged  to  the 
State,  but  an  additional  difficulty  stood  in  the  way  in  the  matter  of 
water  rights.  There  were  in  many  western  valleys  a  large  number 
of  diversions  of  water,  where,  in  nearly  every  case,  the  filing  ex- 
ceeded the  amount  of  water  that  had  been  put  in  use.  All  those 
claims  were  supposed  to  be  more  or  less  valid  and  would  be  prior 
to  any  filing  the  Government  could  make,  and,  of  course,  the  State 
could  not  set  aside  any  legal  rights,  and  it  became  inadvisable  to 
take  up  any  project  there  without  the  cooperation  of  the  interests 
that  made  claim  to  those  rights.  There  was  at  that  time  not  an 
adequate  law  in  Washington  for  the  adjudication  of  those  rights, 
and  any  way  it  would  have  been  impossible  in  this  job  that  wo  h:id 
undertaken  to  do,  and  would  have  greatly  delayed  and  probably 
defeated  the  work,  as  the  results  of  litigation  are  sometimes  almost 
prohibitive  or  destructive  so  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  took 
the  stand  that  he  would  not  begin  development  in  the  Yakima  Valley 
until  those  rights  were  settled  in  some  way,  and  the  only  possible 
way  of  settlement  was  by  common  agreement. 

The  great  majority  of  those  claimants,  of  course,  desired  the  local 
advantage  to  be  derived,  and  the  advantage  to  the  State,  to  the  West, 
and  to  the  whole  country,  and  the  great  majority  of  them  were  will- 
ing to  limit  their  right"  to  what  they  had  already  put  to  beneficial 
use,  or  to  the  capacity  of  the  ditch,  which  was  usually  about  the 
same.  We  had  a  careful  determination  of  all  those  things,  and  the 
general  concensus  of  opinion  was  that  that  was  the  reasonable  way 
to  settle  it,  that  previous  beneficial  use  was  to  be  a  measure  of  ex- 
isting rights,  and  other  rights  would  be  waived,  so  that  the  Gov- 
ernment could  know  where  it  stood,  and  know  that  additional  water 
developed  could  be  used  for  the  new  project. 

As  I  say,  the  majority  of  the  water  users  agreed  to  it,  but  some 
did  not.  We  had  great  difficulty  in  a  number  of  cases,  and  they 
brought  tremendous  local  pressure,  of  a  moral  character,  of  course, 
against  them  to  be  reasonable,  and  the  general  concensus  of  the  val- 
ley was  that  this  basis  upon  which  nearly  all  had  agreed  was  a  rea- 
sonable basis,  and  finally  they  all  came  in  voluntarily  and  signed 
this  agreement,  which,  on  its  face,  did  not  bind  anybody  legally, 
and  for  years  there  was  some  fear  that  litigation  might  be  opened, 
but  the  works  were  started,  and  millions  of  dollars  were  expended, 
and  under  them  the  land  brought  under  cultivation,  and  water  rights 
initiated  to  the  extent  that  later,  when  one  of  these  individuals 
desired  to  break  that  covenant  and  to  establish  an  old  claim  to  water 
that  they  had  long  before  that  covenant  was  made,  the  court  ruled 
that  by  silence  during  the  construction  of  these  works  they  had 
tacitly  waived  any  additional  right,  and  now  that  agreement  stands 
with  the  court  authority  behind  it. 

That  is  an  illustration  of  the  kind  of  moral  pressure  that  can  be 
brought  to  carry  out  a  public  work,  and  is  necessary  where  the 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  487 

local  laws  are  inadequate.  That  can  be  done  either  by  moral  pres- 
sure of  that  kind,  or  it  can  be  done  by  State  legislation,  and  the  only 
doubt  that  exists  as  to  the  presence  of  feasible  projects  in  every 
State  in  the  Union  is  the  doubt  of  the  reasonable  price  of  land. 
There  is  an  abundance  of  undeveloped  land  in  every  State  that  we 
know  of.  In  the  State  of  Illinois,  which  has  been  mentioned  as 
one  of  the  doubtful  ones,  there  are  700,000  acres  of  undeveloped  land, 
classified  as  woodland  in  the  State  of  Illinois.  We  know  that  there 
are  plenty  of  places  where,  if  a  reasonable  price  commensurate  with 
the  present  value  of  the  land  can  be  obtained,  we  would  have  an 
attractive  project  and  could  settle  thousands  of  soldiers. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Is  that  undeveloped  land  in  large  tracts  or  scattered? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  In  tracts  large  enough  for  colonization. 

Mr.  SMITH.  But  all  in  private  ownership? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  All  in  private  ownership,  and  the  price  of  that  land 
is  the  only  thing  in  the  way.  In  the  West  there  is  a  great  deal  of 
public  land,  but  where  there  is  not  enough  public  land  for  a  project 
we  have  some  difficulty  there.  We  have  got  to  acquire  this  land, 
and  the  Government  has  got  to  own  it  in  order  to  make  a  soldier 
settlement  out  of  it,  but  if  the  communities  or  States  will  bring  the 
proper  kind  of  pressure  on  the  owners  of  the  land  and  have  an  ap- 

Eraisement  somewhere  commensurate  with  the  present  value  of  the 
mcl,  there  is  no  doubt  but  what  I  can  get  a  feasible  project  in  every 
State.     That  is  what  the  bill  contemplates,  and  what  we  will  try 
to  do. 

The  bill  attempts  to  safeguard  the  price  by  prohibiting  purchases 
except  under  appraisal  approved  by  the  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board 
and  approved  by  the  governor  and  approved  also  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior,  but  thatTdoes  not  necessarily  mean  that  the  price  is  one 
at  which  the  land  could  be  made  a  soldier  settlement,  If  they  can 
prove  that  the  land  has  changed  hands  at  that  price,  that  might  settle 
it  and  permit  the  marketing  at  that  price,  but  that  does  not  neces- 
sarily prove  that  that  will  be  the  price  that  should  be  paid.  The 
price  at  which  vacant  land  is  held  depends  upon  two  things.  One  is 
the  demand  for  the  land,  and  the  other  is  the  cost  of  holding  it  out 
of  use.  If  it  becomes  too  expensive  to  hold  that  land  out  of  use,  it 
becomes  cheap. 

The  colony  of  New  Zealand  undertook  and  did  very  successfully 
meet  that.  I  am  not  suggesting  anything  experimental.  They  passed 
a  law  providing  that  any  tract  of  land  exceeding  a  certain  size  could 
be  purchased  by  the  Government  at  10  per  cent  advance  upon  the 
rate  at  which  they  had  been  paying  taxes,  unless  that  amount  ex- 
ceeded £250,000  in  value,  and  then  they  could  purchase  at  a  rate  not 
exceeding  5  per  cent  advance  of  the  rate  at  which  they  had  been  pay- 
ing taxes.  Now,  gentlemen,  that  is  perfectly  fair.  The  rate  at 
which  a  man  pays  taxes  is,  according  to  the  law  in  most  of  the  States, 
the  true  value  of  the  land,  and  to  give  10  per  cent  more  than  that  true 
value  means  either  that  you  are  paying  the  fair  value  of  it  or  that 
the  owner  has  been  reaping  an  advantage  in  violation  of  the  land 
laws.  If  that  kind  of  an  exappropriation  act  were  passed  by  any 
State  in  which  this  doubt  arises,  showing  proper  and  necessary  local 
cooperation,  there  is  not  any  doubt  in  my  mind  but  what  we  can  find 


488  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

tracts  in  every  State  which  would  be  available  for  this  soldier  settle- 
ment. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  You  mean  a  provision  that  if  the  owner  asked  a 
higher  price  than  the  assessed  valuation,  that  thereupon  that  shall 
become  the  valuation  for  taxation  purposes? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  The  land  is  not  taken  away  from  him,  but  he  has  that 
alternative  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Do  you  think,  Mr.  Davis,  that  a  law  of  that  kind 
would  be  constitutional — to  compel  a  man  to  sell  if  he  did  not  want  to 
sell?  The  land  may  be  in  tracts  of  such  extent  that  he  would  not 
want  to  sell,  and  I  doubt  if  you  could  compel  him  to  sell. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  another  method,  at  least,  by  which  you  might 
secure  cooperation. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  That  does  not  compel  him  to  sell;  it  merely  puts  a 
valuation  on  his  land,  which  raises  his  taxes.  If  he  wants  to  have  the 
higher  valuation,  he  has  to  pay  taxes  accordingly. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Answering  the  question  of  the  gentleman  from  Idaho, 
it  is  merely  a  method  of  applying  the  principle  of  eminent  domain 
wrhich  all  the  States  have  and  all  the  States  apply  whenever  they 
want  to. 

Mr.  TILLMAX.  Let  me  ask  you  in  that  connection :  Will  you  not  get 
up  against  another  constitutional  proposition,  unless  you  raise  every- 
body's taxes,  or  the  taxes  of  all  who  own  real  estate,  to  approximately 
the  'same  level  ?  Most  of  the  courts  have  decided  that  you  can  not 
assess  A's  real  estate  at  50  per  cent  of  its  value  and  assess  B's  at  25 
per  cent  of  its  value.  You  have  got  to  have  a  uniform  assessment 
plan,  by  which  everybody's  taxes  will  be  uniform,  before  you  can  en- 
force anything  of  that  kind  in  this  country. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  This  would  not  be  changing  any  existing  requirements 
of  law.  The  existing  requirements  of  law  are  that  land  shall  be 
assessed  at  its  true  value  anyway. 

Mr.  TILLMAX.  It  is  not  done  in  this  country  at  all. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  am  speaking  only  of  the  provision  of  law. 

Mr.  MAYS.  You  believe  the  taxing  power  of  the  State  ought  to  be 
used  to  make  men  sell  their  property  whether  they  want  to  sell  or 
not.  or  destroy  it? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  that  that  is  the  proper  way  of  handling  land — 
something  a  man  does  not  make  himself — or  at  least  unused  land 
needed  for  public  purposes. 

Mr.  MAYS.  This  would  apply  not  only  to  unused  lands,  but  would 
apply  to  a  man's  farm  when  he  is  working  it. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  If  it  were  uniformly  applied  it  would  not  be  any  hard- 
ship to  tax  land  at  its  true  value.  It  is  merely  a  way  of  enforcing  the 
present  law. 

Mr.  MAYS.  What  would  you  do  with  the  money  that  you  raised  by 
taxes  if  you  increased  everybody's  taxes  so  that  he  would  have  to  sell'? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  You  would  not  do  that.  It  would  not  increase  taxes  in 
general,  but  if  it  raised  the  assessment  it  would  lower  the  rate  pro- 
portionately. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Then,  there  would  be  no  hardship  whatever,  and  a  man 
•would  not  have  to  sell  ? 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  489 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  think  your  idea  is  all  right  to  compel  the  beneficial 
use  of  land  just  as  you  do  of  the  water  in  irrigated  States,  but  it  is 
just  a  question  of  how  you  can  reach  it. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Has  the  law  any  right  to  condemn  property  that 
is  held  in  use  for  public  purposes"  when  the  public  wants  to  use  it  ? 
Take  unimproved  land  that  is  held  in  great  quantities  in  some  States 
that  we  all  know  about.  Can  the  law  enter  in  and  say,  "  We  are  go- 
ing to  condemn  and  put  a  valuation  on  this  property,  and  you  will 
have  to  sell."  Can  they  do  that? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  In  many  localities  unused  land  is  assessed  far  below  the 
price  at  which  it  can  be  bought,  while  land  in  use  is  assessed  at  nearly 
its  full  value.  The  New  Zealand  law  simply  equalizes  this  and  places 
the  correct  value  on  the  various  tracts. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  can  only  be  exercised  where  the  use  is  for 
public  purposes. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  the  laws  of  Australia  are 
such  that  a  man  has  to  sell  at  10  per  cent  more  than  the  assessed 
valuation  of  his  land? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  New  Zealand. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  At  10  per  cent  more  than  the  assessed  valuation  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  If  the  price  he  puts  on  the  land  is  more  than  10 
per  cent  over  the  assessed  value,  then  the  land  has  to  be  taxed  at  that 
rate? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  In  other  words,  the  owner  fixes  his  own  value  for  tax- 
ation and  in  doing  so  he  incurs  an  obligation  to  sell  for  10  per  cent 
more. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  And  that  fixes  the  price  for  it  at  the  time  when 
the  Government  takes  it? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  If  they  are  willing  to  sell  that  land  out? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  the  way  I  understand. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  That  is  only  for  Government  purposes  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  not  to  everybody ;  it  is  only  for  public  purposes. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Do  you  have  statistics  showing  the  average  cost  of  land 
per  acre  under  the  irrigation  projects  so  far  completed? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MAYS.  About  how  much  does  that  run? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  runs,  on  an  average,  in  the  neighborhood  of  $60 
per  acre. 

Mr.  MAYS.  That  includes  the  perpetual  water  rights. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  all  it  does  include,  water  rights,  which  is  the 
cost  of  the  construction  work  which  has  been  done.  It  usually  in- 
cludes drainage  also. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Do  you  have  any  record  to  show  what  that  land  is  worth 
at  the  present  time,  on  an  average  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  varies  widely,  but  I  think,  in  general,  on  an  average 
it  will  be  nearly  double  that  price.  That  would  not,  of  course,  be 
a  universal  rule,  but  much  of  it  is  worth  several  times  the  cost  of 
reclamation.  I  have  in  mind  the  Idaho  project  where  the  charge 
is  $30  an  acre,  $55  on  one  side  of  the  river  and  $30  on  the  other,  and 
the  average  price  is  over  $50  an  acre,  and  those  were  raw  lands. 
$50  an  acre  was  the  average  price  paid. 


490  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  MAYS.  I  had  reference  to  the  value  of  the  land  after  devel- 
opment. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  This  has  water  rights  still  to  be  paid  for;  the  water 
right  is  in  addition  to  the  price  mentioned. 

Mr.  MAYS.  What  I  am  trying  to  get  at  is  whether  or  not  the  settler 
has  made  a  profit  out  of  his  investment. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  On  the  average,  yes,  sir.  That,  of  course,  depends, 
too,  on  the  individual,  as  to  how  profitably  or  wisely  he  has  con- 
structed his  improvements,  because  his  investment  has  been  in  his 
improvements,  but  so  far  as  the  water  right  is  concerned,  I  think 
there  is  practically  no  exception  to  the  rule  that  he  has  made  a  profit 
on  that  worth  more  than  that  cost  him. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Ranging  around  an  average  of  100  per  cent? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  probably  nearly  that. 

Mr.  MAYS.  On  the  cost  of  his  water  right  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  nearly  that. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Would  $20  an  acre  be  an  average? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Much  more.    Of  course  it  would  be  a  very  wide  guess. 

Mr.  GANDY.  Do  you  happen  to  have  that  kind  of  figures  on  the 
South  Dakota  schcol-land  sale  this  spring,  on  that  project? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No,  sir,  I  do  not. 

Mr.  GANDY.  I  think  that  is  directly  in  point  to  this  question.  The 
school  lands  on  the  project  have  not  as  yet  been  developed,  and  the 
State  held  its  first  sale  this  spring.  When  the  project  was  built  they 
were  raw,  dry  lands.  There  never  has  been  anything  done  on  them. 
The  project  has  been  developed  around  them,  and  it  is  my  under- 
standing that  those  lands  sold  for  an  average  of  about  $75  an  acre. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Uncultivated  ? 

Mr.  GANDY.  Uncultivated,  unimproved,  raw,  and  on  top  of  that 
the  purchaser  will  have  to  pay  the  water  charge. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes. 

Mr.  GANDY.  So  that  the  State  of  South  Dakota,  as  a  State,  and 
as  an  idle-land  holder,  has  profited  in  the  sale  price  of  its  land,  be- 
cause before  the  project  was  built  I  doubt  if  those  lands  would  have 
brought  $10  an  acre. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  And  the  cost  of  the  water  right  is  $40  an  acre  ? 

Mr.  GANDY.  The  cost  of  the  water  right  on  the  State  land  was  $40 
an  acre. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  When  you  estimate  that  $60  do  you  include  the  initial 
value  of  the  raw  land?  How  do  you  arrive  at  that  cost  of  $60  an 
acre  to  bring  that  1-and  under  cultivation  ?  Do  you  include  anywhere 
the  value  of  the  raw  land  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No.  As  a  rule,  I  think,  with  a  little  exception,  the 
value  would  be  under  $10  an  acre.  There  are  a  few  projects  in  the 
eastern  arid  States,  where  the  dry  land  has  a  higher  value  than  that, 
for  farm  purposes,  perhaps  up  as  high  as  $30  an  acre,  but  usually  the 
acre  value  is  under  $10. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Mr.  Davis,  can  you  not  give  us  a  little  concrete  state- 
ment as  to  what  are  the  benefits,  if  any,  of  this  bill,  over  and  above 
the  present  reclamation  act?  Start,  for  instance,  with  some  of  the 
provisions  of  the  reclamation  law,  for  instcance,  that  they  have  to 
pay  for  the  land  in  20  years,  and  under  this  bill  they  have  to  pay 
for  it  in  40  years,  and  under  the  reclamation  law  they  do  not  pay 
any  interest,  and  under  this  they  have  to  pay  4  per  cent. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIEES.  491 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Can  you  parallel  the  distinction,  if  there  is  any,  and 
state  what  are  the  distinctions  between  this  and  the  present  reclama- 
tion law,  and  what  are  the  beneficial  features? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  This  law  is  an  improvement  over  the  reclamation  law, 
in  my  judgment,  in  several  respects.  The  first  is  that  it  applies  to 
the  entire  country,  and  you  know  the  benefits  of  that  as  well  as  I. 
The  next  is  that  it  places  the  settler  on  a  going  concern,  where  he 
can  make  crops  the  nrst  year.  It  puts  the  land  in  shape  to  be  culti- 
vated. It  assists  him  in  supplying  what  he  needs  for  the  cultivation 
of  the  land,  in  the  way  of  stock,  implements,  and  buildings,  so  that 
the  man  can  actually  operate  that  farm  and  receive  results  the  first 
year.  That,  to  my  mind,  more  than  offsets  the  charge  of  interest, 
because  it  puts  him  in  shape  so  that  he  can  begin  paying  just  as 
quickly  as  he  gets  into  operation,  if  he  knows  how,  and  he  will  be 
instructed  how,  if  he  desires  or  needs  instruction. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Is  this  instructor  to  be  a  taskmaster  or  boss  that  is 
going  to  control  everybody,  or  be  the  bugaboo  that  some  seem  to 
think  he  is  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS,  Not  at  all.  The  idea  is  to  have  the  cooperation  of  the 
agricultural  colleges  in  the  selection  of  men  and  provision  of  the 
instruction,  usually,  on  a  large  project,  by  the  establishment  of  local 
schools  or  demonstration  farms  where  they  will  show  what  can  be 
done  and  how  it  can  be  done,  and  anybody  desiring  instruction  can 
come  there  and  get  it,  and  it  will  be  given  free  and  made  accessible 
to  everybody.  There  will  not  be  anything  operating  to  enforce  any 
authority  on  the  part  of  these  instructors,  except  the  indirect  pres- 
sure that  will  come  when  a  man  wants  an  extension  of  his  pay- 
ments, or  anything  of  that  kind,  or  desires  some  leniency  or  a  fur- 
ther loan. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  In  other  words,  if  he  is  one  of  these  fellows  who 
thinks  he  knows  it  all  and  does  not  need  any  instruction,  he  does  not 
have  to  take  it? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  He  does  not  have  to  take  instruction,  but  he  has  to 
make  his  payments,  and  that  is  where  the  test  will  come. 

Mr.  GANDY.  If  he  does  make  his  payments  there  will  be  no  pres- 
sure of  any  kind  at  all  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Exactly. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  have  now  on  a  project  in  Oregon  an  ex- 
perimental farm  at  the  present  time. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  There  is  on  many  of  our  projects,  carried  on,  some  of 
them  by  cooperation  of  the  State,  and  some  by  the  United  States, 
through  the  Agricultural  Department,  and  it  has  been  beneficial. 
They  have  shown  what  could  be  done,  and  usually  have  developed 
different  problems,  such  as  raising  alfalfa  on  refractory  soils. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  the  farmers  seek  the  advice  of  the  agricul- 
tural experts  on  the  demonstration  farms? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  successful  ones,  especially,  do,  and  there  is  no 
effort  to  force  them  out.  There  is  no  objection  to  their  presence, 
but  they  are  glad  to  have  them  there. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  He  is  no  more  than  a  county  agent  that  goes  to  the 
various  counties  and  acts  as  an  expert  adviser  to  the  people  that 
•want  his  advice  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 


492  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  GANDY.  I  want  to  correct  the  record.  Mr.  Davis  did  not  get 
my  question,  because  lie  made  an  erroneous  answer  that  I  do  not 
want  to  stand.  I  said  if  the  man  makes  his  payment  there  is  not  any 
pressure  of  any  kind  at  all.  You  understood  me  to  say  if  he  did  not. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes;  I  misunderstood  you.  That  is  true.  There  is 
no  kind  of  pressure  at  all  on  the  man  who  makes  his  payments. 
If  he  does  not,  the  pressure  is  for  the  collection  of  the  money. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Go  ahead  and  tell  the  distinguishing  characteristics 
of  this  measure  and  the  other. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  One  of  the  strong  points  of  this  bill  is  that  it  authorizes 
work  where  the  development  will  be  beneficial  to  existing  commu- 
nities which  have  now  to  incur  immense  railroad  hauls  to  get  their 
supplies.  That  applies  particularly  to  New  England  and  eastern 
New  York,  where  intense  manufacturing  is  in  progress  and  where 
agriculture  is  in  decadence.  That  country  requires  reclamation  in  the 
same  sense,  though  it  is  not  as  difficult  as  in  the  western  country.  It 
requires  clearing  usually,  sometimes  some  leveling,  sometimes  a  little 
drainage,  and  always  the  application  of  some  kind  of  fertilizer,  gen- 
erally lime,  sometimes  phosphates,  and  nearly  always  humus  or 
nitrogen.  The  eastern  lands,  while  they  require  that,  are  not  so 
deficient  in  nitrogen  as  the  western  lands.  In  all  the  States  that  can 
be  done  to-day  at  less  expense  than  has  been  incurred  for  the  larger 
irrigation  works  for  the  irrigation  of  land,  which  will  be  necessary 
forever  in  the  future  for  any  large  development  in  irrigation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  On  the  reclamation  projects  heretofore  there  has 
been  no  wholesale  or  general  buying  of  material  for  building  and  im- 
provement, and  that  is  contemplated  in  this  act. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  the  great  contrast  between  the  two.  This  act 
provides  the  farmer  with  a  going  concern,  and  if  he  is  industrious  he 
can  take  hold  of  that  and  make  it  a  success  and  make  his  payments 
from  his  product  there.  That  is  not  now  true  with  the  western 
farmer.  Under  the  reclamation  act  that  man  takes  the  water  right 
and  the  raw  land,  and  he  has  all  the  rest  to  dp  himself.  He  has  to  do 
whatever  clearing  is  necessary,  and  in  irrigation  a  great  deal  of  level- 
ing is  required,  much  more  than  on  a  nonirrigated  farm,  and  he  has 
to  provide  his  own  farm  buildings,  his  own  stock,  and  his  own  im- 
plements and  money. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  It  takes  two  or  three  years  before  there  is  enough 
humus  in  the  soil  to  produce  a  crop,  does  it  not  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  takes  two  or  three  years  more  work  to  put  enough 
humus  in  the  soil  to  make  it  pay.  In  the  arid  countries  the  soil  has 
has  very  little  nitrogen  in  it,  and  it  has  to  be  incorporated  by  putting 
in  humus  and  truning  them  in,  and  sometimes  years  are  required  to 
bring  the  land  into  a  productive  state  by  this  method. 

I  do  not  mean  to  cite  this  as  a  thing  that  ought  to  be  done,  but 
there  are  cases,  and  one  that  I  will  cite  in  the  Huntley  project  in 
Montana,  where  a  man  went  there  with  just  enough  money  to  pay 
his  filing  fee  and  get  on  the  ground  and  have  $35  left.  That  is  all  he 
had.  He  had  to  start  to  work  and  had  to  rent  teams  and  had  to  work 
out  and  invoke  all  the  various  devices  that  a  man  would  under  those 
circumstances,  and  he  made  a  go,  and  has  one  of  the  most  successful 
projects  there,  a  very  highly  developed  40-acre  unit. 

This  project  was  referred  to  by  one  of  the  speakers  before  when 
he  said  it  was  a  case  where  the  Government  had  made  a  mistake  by 


HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS.  493 

the  creation  of  too  small  a  unit.  That  was  in  Montana,  about  the 
same  latitude  he  was  talking  about,  but  he  said  that  in  order  to  make 
it  a  success  we  had  to  enlarge  the  unit.  I  do  not  know  where  he  got 
his  information,  but  that  is  entirely  contrary  to  the  facts.  The  aver- 
age unit  there  was  43  acres  of  irrigable  land,  and  the  project  has  been 
one  of  the  best  successes,  and  there  has  been  practically  no  delin- 
quency in  payments,  and  very  few  applications  for  any  lienency  or 
anything  of  the  kind. 

Mr.  GANDY.  What  do  they  raise  there  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  staple  is  alfalfa.  They  raise  sugar  beets  also. 
There  is  a  beet  sugar  factory  about  20  miles  away.  But  that  is  not 
the  main  product.  The  main  product  is  the  alfalfa,  and  they  raise  a 
good  deal  of  grain. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Can  you  tell  the  committee  approximately  how  much 
will  be  repaid  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  by  the  various 
reclamation  projects  throughout  the  West  this  year  and  from  now 
on — cash  return  to  the  Federal  Treasury?  Some  intimate  that  we 
are  not  paying  back  here. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  amount  which  will  be  paid  this  year  is  between 
$1,500,000  and  $2,000,000. 

Mr.  TAITLOR.  I  want  what  will  be  repaid  by  the  settlers  back  into 
the  Federal  Treasury. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  What  is  the  general  estimate  when  the  repayment 
period  is  passed  as  to  the  percentage  of  repayment  of  the  total 
amount  outlaid  by  the  Government? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Will  you  repeat  that  question? 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Will  the  Government  get  100  per  cent  back  of  the 
money  outlaid  on  these  reclamation  projects  over  the  period  you  ex- 
pect these  payments  to  occur? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  a  very  deep  question,  and  requires  some  prog- 
nostication, of  course,  but  was  gone  into  thoroughly  by  the  board  of 
cost  review  that  Secretary  Lane  appointed  a  few  years  ago  to  ex- 
amine all  of  these  projects,  and  they  figured  that  the  return  will  be  in 
the  neighborhood  of  90  per  cent. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  In  the  present  case  that  is  covered  by  this  bill  you 
expect  the  return  to  be  greater  by  reason  of  the  Government  getting 
the  interest  added  to  the  amount? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes ;  the  interest  will  make  it  very  much  greater. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  return  this  year  will  be  10  per  cent  over  your 
total  expended? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Not  quite  that? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No;  the  returns  for  this  year  are  estimated  at  $1.500,- 
000.  That  is  for  the  next  fiscal  year  beginning  the  1st  of  July. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  In  addition  to  that,  of  course,  this  estimated  return 
of  90  per  cent  of  the  total  investment  is  due  in  some  measure  to  the 
initial  payments  in  the  field,  and  then  to  the  percentage  of  values  by 
reason  of  the  want  of  figures  such  as  you  put  in  this  act.  You  are 
going  now  on  the  experience  of  nearly  a  generation  to  perfect  this 
act  in  order  to  get  around  a  good  many  of  the  difficulties  that  have 
been  experienced  in  the  reclamation  Avork  business  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir :  that  is  true.  The  principal  cause  of  the  lack 
of  a  100  per  cent  collection  was  the  requirement  of  law  that  the 


494  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

project  be  taken  up  in  every  State  that  had  public  land.  That 
required  a  project  in  North  Dakota,  and  that  project  has  not  been  a 
success.  It  is  one  that  the  board  of  review  cut  off.  It  is  in  a  semi- 
arid  region. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Could  that  argument  be  carried  back  against  you, 
that  this  bill  provides  for  a  project  to  be  established  in  each  State? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Where  feasible. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Was  that  project  in  North  Dakota  taken  up  against 
the  recommendations  of  the  engineers? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  certainly  was. 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  was  actually  taken  up  against  the  recommendations 
of  the  engineers  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  can  not  speak  for  others,  but  it  was  against  mine. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  said  a  few  moments  ago  that  the  average  cost 
of  settlement  of  land  under  the  reclamation  projects  throughout  the 
West  was  about  how  much  per  acre  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  Government  reclamation  projects? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  About  $60. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Do  you  feel  that  you  have  sufficient  data  from  which 
you  can  give  this  committee  an  approximate  estimate  of  what  will 
be  the  cost  to  the  soldier  per  acre  of  the  lands  outside  of  the  recla- 
mation and  irrigation  projects  of  the  West?  Take  the  average  cut- 
over  land  that  you  would  locate  and  the  average  swamp  land  that 
you  would  locate,  and  land  that  needs  draining  in  part  and  is 
abandoned  or  idle,  or  used  to-day  for  pasture,  etc.  What  would 
you  estimate  will  be  charged  to  the  soldier?  Would  it  be  more  than 
a  quarter  of  that  amount  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Oh.  yes. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Why? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  One  reason  is  that  you  are  providing  improvements 
and  equipment  and  the  services  of  experts  that  we  do  not  provide 
on  the  reclamation  projects.  I  think  I  misunderstood  that  question. 
I  understood  you  to  ask  regarding  lands  that  had  been  opened  on 
which  they  are  now  paying.  You  referred  to  the  projects  when 
completed  ? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes ;  practically. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  will  be  higher. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  What  will  that  be? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  presume  that  will  be  in  the  neighborhood  of  $75 
or  $80. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  You  are  speaking  of  the  reclamation  projects  in  the 
West? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Mr.  Taylor  wants  to  know,  exclusive  of  those,  what 
you  estimate  will  be  the  total  price  per  acre  of  projects  under  the 
present  act  we  are  now  considering,  as  applied  to  cut-over  lands, 
woodlands,  and  PO  on. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  understand  the  question  perfectly. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  would  like  for  you  to  give  an  approximation.  If  it 
costs  $75  or  $80  an  acre,  which  I  think  it  does  to  the  settler,  without 
question — at  least  it  does  in  Colorado — what  would  be  the  cost  of 
the  acreage,  other  than  the  cost  of  building  barns  and  things  of  that 
kind  that  they  can? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  495 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Simply  reclaiming  the  land. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes ;  what  will  that  land  itself  be  probably  put  in  to 
the  soldier  at? 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  will  depend  on  the  locality. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  am  trying  to  get  a  general  average. 

Mr.  SMITH.  You  do  not  want  a  general  average  to  apply  in  some 
States  where  the  land  is  going  to  be  very  cheap. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  There  is  a  wide  difference  in  the  lands  in  the  West. 
We  are  just  making  a  kind  of  estimate.  I  do  not  believe  it  will  cost 
the  soldier  $20  an  acre,  and  it  cost  $75  or  $80  in  the  West.  What  I 
am  trying  to  get  at  is  some  estimate  that  we  can  give  to  the  people 
as  to  what  these  soldiers  will  probably  have  to  pay  for  this  land. 

Mr.  SMITH.  But  you  would  not  want  to  give  the  average;  in  a 
locality  where  farm  values  are  away  down,  you  would  not  want  to 
give  the  average  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Let  Mr.  Davis  answer  it  in  his  own  way. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  You  mean  the  average  cost  of  reclamation  ? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  average  cost  of  reclamation  I  have  already  stated. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Including  the  purchase  price  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  cost  of  reclamation  is  going  through  a  wide  varia- 
tion, and  it  is  impossible  to  make  any  very  close  estimate  of  what  that 
will  average;  but  I  think  we  are  perfectly  safe  in  saying  that  it  will 
be  less  than  it  has  been  for  reclamation  by  irrigation. 

Mr.  TILLMAN.  Exclusive  of  the  land  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Exclusive  of  the  original  cost  of  the  land.  That  orig- 
inal cost  of  the  land  is  a  very  uncertain  thing,  and  it  widely  varies. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  do  not  include  the  purchase  price,  Mr.  Davis  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No;  nor  did  I  make  any  estimate,  except  I  am  sure  it 
is  lower  than  the  cost  of  reclamation  by  irrigation.  I  do  not  believe 
that  any  closer  figures  will  be  available,  because  we  have  not  made 
enough  'investigation. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Is  not  this  true,  Mr.  Director,  that  in  some  localities 
you  are  going  to  drain  land  and  be  able  to  put  it  on  the  market  for 
probably  $15  or  $20  an  acre? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  do  not  believe  there  will  be  any  case  of  that  kind ;  I 
do  not  know  of  any. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  think  it  will  be  more  than  that? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes;  I  am  sure  of  that.  There  are  very  few  States 
where  we  can  buy  it  for  less  than  that.  Of  course,  there  are  vast 
areas  in  some  States  where  we  can  buy  it  for  less  than  that,  but  if  you 
take  the  average  State,  it  will  cost  more  than  that  for  first-class  land, 
exclusive  of  any  reclamation. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  From  your  knowledge  of  these  reclamation  projects, 
and  the  total  cost  they  may  stand  the  Government,  is  it  not  reasonable 
to  suppose  that  they  will  increase  in  value  after  the  soldier  settlement  is 
on  these  different  projects  as  much  as  the  irrigation  projects  of  the 
West  have  increased  in  value,  which  you  have  said  to  be  about  100 
per  cent  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes :  I  think  that  is  a  conservative  estimate. 
Mr.  HERSMAX.  That  is  a  very  important  thing. 
Mr.  DAVIS.  As  a  rule;  but  that  depends  again  on  what  its  first  cost 
is.    If  we  have  to  buy  land  at  $75  or  $100  an  acre  anywhere,  which  I 
hope  we  will  not,  that  puts  a  very  different  aspect/  on  it. 
133319—19 32 


496  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  one  more  question  about  tlie 
irrigation  of  land  in  the  West.  You  said  the  Government  reclama- 
tion projects  had  been  uniformly  successful. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Did  you  not  say  that  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No,-  sir. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  I  would  like  to  have  you  tell  me  what  proportion  of 
them  have  been  a  success. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  stated  that  the  estimate  by  the  Board  of  Cost  Eeview, 
which  went  into  this  matter  very  thoroughly,  was  that  about  90  per 
cent  of  the  fund  would  be  returned. 

.  Mr.  HERSMAN.  No;  I  mean  a  success  as  far  as  the  settler  was  con- 
cerned, to  make  money  for  him. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Well,  that  is  about  the  same  answer.  An  illustration  is 
the  North  Dakota  project,  where  they  refused  to  use  the  water.  Of 
course,  the  settler  did  not  benefit  there.  In  taking  up  work  in  a  semi- 
arid  region,  where  people  do  not  have  to  take  the  water,  and  the  land 
is  in  private  ownership,  without  authority  to  acquire  the  land,  we 
can  not  always  succeed  with  irrigation. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  A  number  of  years  ago  they  took  up  a  reclamation 
project  clown  in  Kansas. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  They  might  just  as  well  have  taken  it  up  in  New 
York.  And  they  tried  to  take  up  one  in  Oklahoma,  and  they  took  up 
one  or  two  there  that  they  never  ought  to  have  taken  up. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  We  could  make  an  irrigation  project  pay  in  the  State 
of  New  York,  if  we  owned  the  land,  but  we  do  not  own  the  land  and 
have  no  authority  to  acquire  it. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Have  the  reclamation  projects  you  have  passed  on 
been  a  success,  the  ones  that  you  have  reported  on  favorably? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  You  refer  to  me  personally. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Yes,  sir;  you,  as  the  head  of  the  Reclamation 
Service. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  would  consider  so.  There  may  be  a  few  cases  where 
there  is  a  unit  here  and  there  where  there  might  have  been  a  mis- 
take, but  the  information  of  the  Government  is  the  estimate  made 
by  the  Board  of  Cost  Review,  90  per  cent. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  In  regard  to  private  reclamation  projects  of  the 
West,  can  you  give  me  a  little  estimate  of  the  proportion  of  those 
which  have  been  a  success,  so  far  as  the  settler  was  concerned  on 
those  projects  making  good  and  increasing  the  value  of  the  land  that 
he  settled  on? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  do  not  know  that  I  could  give  you  any  closer  estimate 
that  would  be  of  any  value.  I  know  that,  in  general,  it  has  been  a 
success,  and  I  know  of  a  good  many  places  where  they  have  under- 
taken projects  without  sufficient  water  supply,  and  some  things  of  that 
kind,  but  that,  of  course,  is  a  matter  we  try  to  avoid,  and  usually 
have  avoided. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  One  more  question.  In  regard  to  phosphates,  what 
portion  of  the  expense  in  some  of  these  lands  of  the  East  would  be 
required  to  be  expended  for  the  purchase  of  phosphates  to  reclaim 
these  lands  where  phosphates  were  necessary? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  could  not  answer  that  question,  as  it  varies  widely. 
It  will  not  be  a  large  element  in  the  expense,  in  my  judgment,  but 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  497 

we  have  not  made  soil  surveys.  We  simply  have  general  informa- 
tion. I  could  not  make  an  estimate  on  that. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Where  do  we  get  our  phosphate  supply  from? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Phosphates  can  be  had  in  the  Carolinas  and  Florida, 
in  Idaho  and  in  Wyoming,  and  I  think  there  are  some  other  beds  of 
less  extent,  but  those  are  very  large,  extensive,  and  valuable. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Under  the  reclamation  plan,  what  would  the  average 
price  of  each  project  be  estimated  at?  What  do  you  estimate  as  the 
average  price  of  each  project,  under  the  reclamation  plan  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  How  much  per  acre  ?  I  did  not  understand  your  ques- 
tion. You  mean  the  present  value  of  land  ? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  No;  I  mean  what  do  you  estimate  to  be  the  average 
price  of  one  of  these  farms  under  the  present  bill  that  we  are  con- 
sidering ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Oh,  to  the  soldier? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Yes. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  About  $5,000. 

Mr.  NICHOLS,  in  the  reclamation  scheme  what  would  be  the  aver- 
age price  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  For  the  water  right,  you  mean? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  For  what? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  For  the  water  right  ? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Yes. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Between  $3,000  and  $4,000. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Under  the  reclamation  plan  a  period  of  20  years 
is  allowed  for  payment ;  under  this  bill  the  period  is  40  years.  Will 
you  please  tell  me  why  the  difference,  why  40  years  is  allowed  instead 
of  20? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  On  account  of  the  requirement  of  interest  repayment. 
Under  the  reclamation  act  no  repayment  of  interest  is  required  on 
the  part  of  the  settler,  and  this  bill  requires  interest. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Is  it  really  considered  by  the  department  that  it 
will  take  a  soldier  40  years  to  pay? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Many  of  them,  doubtless  most  of  them,  will  pay  in  a 
shorter  time,  but  under  this  bill  the  Secretary  can  fix  a  shorter 
time. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  If  it  takes  a  soldier  40  years  to  pay  for  it  would  you 
consider  it  a  success? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  If  he  did  it  successfully,  I  should  say  so. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  If  he  paid  for  his  project  in  40  years  it  would  be 
considered  a  success? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  long  time  is  intended  as  a  privilege  to  the  soldier? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Yes,  Mr.  Smith;  but  I  am  suggesting  this:  That 
it  is  not  such  a  wonderful  opportunity  if  it  takes  a  man  40  years  to- 
pay  $5,000. 

Mr.  SMITH.  But  he  can  pay  it  sooner  if  he  wants  to. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  know  he  can  pay  it  sooner,  if  he  can,  but  the  law 
says  40  years. 

Mr.  SMITH.  He  can  pay  it  in  less  than  40  years  if  he  wants  to. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  am  simply  suggesting  that  it  is  not  such  a  wonder- 
ful thing  if  it  takes  that  long  to  pay  for  it. 


498  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  If  a  soldier  goes  into  an  irrigation  project  and  has 
allotted  to  him  40  acres  of  very  good  land,  with  an  overhead,  so  far  as 
repayment  of  interest  and  principal,  of  only  one-fourth,  which  is 
very  slight,  and  with  the  proper  amount  of  industry,  is  it  not  per- 
fectly possible  for  him  to  get  $50  per  acre,  or  $2,000  a  year,  and  to 
repay  the  purchase  price  of  that  land  in  2  or  3  years,  if  he  is  a 
good  farmer? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Very  likely.  I  have  known  cases  where  the  price  could 
be  paid  back  in  one  or  two  years. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  If  the  projects  are  selected  carefully.  The  40-year 
privilege  is  for  the  case  of  a  man  with  a  very  large  overhead,  such 
as  a  man  with  a  family,  etc.,  but  the  goal  of  every  man  with  any 
industry  is  at  least  a  5-year  privilege  to  pay  for  the  farm  and  clear 
up  the  whole  business,  and  then  ask  for  a  release  and  have  the  35 
years  taken  off. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Well,  I  do  not  think  the  average  could  do  it  in  five 
years. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Ten  years  would  about  cover  the  average? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  so.  I  am  inclined  to  think,  though,  that  I  or 
anyone  else  having  this  privilege  wTould  rather  go  ahead  and  improve 
the  farm,  bring  it  to  a  high  state  of  improvement  and  comfortable 
state  of  living  as  long  as  he  could  carry  this  debt  at  4  per  cent,  be- 
cause he  can  not  borrow  money  from  anybody  else  at  that  rate. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  What  has  been  the  average  term  of  years  it  has  taken 
to  make  payment  under  the  reclamation  plan  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  They  have  no  interest  payment  at  all,  and  I  think  only 
2  per  cent  or  3  per  cent  have  paid  out  before  the  time  allowed 
by  law. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Twenty  years? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir;  a  few  have  made  payment  in  full. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Is  that  because  they  have  not  been  able  to  pay  out 
in  the  specified  time,  or  because  they  are  prudent  business  men  ?  In 
other  words,  would  not  a  man  be  foolish,  when  he  is  only  paying 
4  per  cent  on  this  obligation,  to  take  the  earnings  of  his  farm  and 
pay  it  off  when  he  can  put  those  earnings  out  and  get  8  per  cent? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Why  does  the  Government  extend  the  length  of 
time? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  To  take  care  of  the  poor  fellow. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  To  take  care  of  the  fellow  who  can  not  do  it,  not  to 
take  care  of  the  fellow  who  can  employ  his  money  in  other  ways  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  In  the  first  place,  the  soldier  pays  $2,000  as  an 
initial  payment  on  the  project? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No,  sir;  I  figure  $1,200  as  the  average  initial  payment, 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  That  is  the  initial  payment? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  And  the  40  years'  provision  is  to  take  care  of  the  re- 
mainder of  the  $5,000,  or  $3,800  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SMITH.  He  pays  so  much  each  year. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  When  he  gets  through  these  40  years 

Mr.  NICHOLS  (interposing).  He  is  dead,  probably. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  If  he  has  been  reasonably  wise  and  prudent,  instead  of 
having  a  $5,000  farm  he  may  have  a* $25,000  farm. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  4991 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  It  would  be  a  good  thing  for  his  children,  would 
it  not? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir ;  it  would  be  a  good  thing  for  his  children  and 
for  him.  I  wish  I  had  a  $25,000  farm. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  I  wish  I  could  buy  a  farm  with  40  years  for  repay- 
ment. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Comparing  this  bill  with  the  reclamation  act,  where 
we  charge  no  interest,  what  would  you  say  about  it? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  So  far  as  the  beneficiary  is  concerned — the  soldier  or 
settler — I  think  it  is  better  than  the  reclamation  act.  That  is,  for 
the  poor  man.  Of  course,  the  man  with  plenty  of  capital  has  a  great 
advantage  under  the  reclamation  act,  but  for  the  average  poor  man 
that  we  are  trying  to  help,  I  think  it  is  a  better  proposition,  or  just 
as  good,  to  say  the  least,  as  the  reclamation  act.  He  can  get  started 
with  at  least  a  small  initial  outlay  and  he  has  a  greater  chance  of 
succeeding,  because  he  has  the  wise  expenditure  of  this  early  invest- 
ment supervised  by  experts,  and  the  advice  of  other  experts  as  to 
how  to  secure  the  money  to  make  his  payments,  and  he  has  a  better, 
chance  of  getting  his  money  back  than  under  the  reclamation  act. 

Mr.  MAYS.  You  propose  to  do  more  under  this  act  than  you  do' 
under  the  reclamation  act? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  For  the  very  poor  man.  To  a  man  who  has  $5,000,  of 
course,  the  water  right  without  a  long-time  interest  is  a  great  ad- 
vantage, but  for  the  man  who  has  no  money  to  make  the  necessary 
payments  this  bill  is  better. 

Mr.  MAYS.  What  has  been  the  average  payment  that  the  settler 
has  had  to  make  under  the  reclamation  act? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  law  divides  the  settler  into  two  classes,  one  of 
which  makes  the  settler  pay  an  average  initial  payment  of  5  per  cent 
and  the  other  an  average  initial  payment  of  2  per  cent,  according  to 
whether  he  has  prior  rights. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Then,  he  has  to  make  his  improvements  himself? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  MAYS.  You  have  no  provision  for  any  loans  to  make  im- 
provements ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No,  sir.  If  they  negotiate  any  loans  with  the  Govern- 
ment, it  must  be  through  the  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board,  but  most 
of  them  have  their  lands  tied  up  under  liens  and  can  not  do  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Under  the  reclamation  law  the  man  had  to  do 
his  own  clearing  and  his  own  leveling  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  contemplated  under  this  bill  that  the  land 
will  be  cleared  for  him  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Of  all  these  settlers  that  have  taken  advantage  of 
the  reclamation  act,  what  proportion  of  them  had  a  little  money  to 
start  with  and  what  was  the  amount  they  had  to  start  with? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Of  course,  I  assume  that  all  of  them  had  a  little  money 
to  start  with;  but  I  suppose  you  mean  something  over  a  hundred 
dollars? 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Yes ;  some  reasonable  amount  to  go  ahead  on. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  can  not  give  you  any  accurate  statistics;  but,  as  a 
rule,  from  general  knowledge,  I  would  say  that  at  least  90  per  cent 


500  HOMES  jfOE  SOLDIERS. 

of  our  settlers  had  several  hundred  dollars  to  start  with,  and  some 
of  them  had  several  thousand  dollars. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  On  the  reclamation  projects? 
Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Then,  there  would  be  a  difference  between  those 
men  and  soldiers  that  are  starting  with  practically  nothing? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Well,  when  you  speak  of  the  soldier  starting  with 
nothing,  that  means  just  as  he  comes  back;  but,  of  course,  he  must 
have  something  to  make  an  initial  payment. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Mr.  Davis,  why  does  this  arrangement  permit  a 
period  of  40  years  to  make  payment  for  the  land?  What  might 
occur  that  would  take  a  soldier  40  years  to  pay  for  his  land  ? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  There  are  many  misfortunes  that  the  soldier  might  go 
through,  or  he  might  be  burdened  with  an  invalid  family  or  some- 
thing of  that  kind;  he  might  himself  be  sick  or  might  have  an  un- 
usual loss  of  stock  or  agricultural  crops.  I  think  in  nearly  all  cases 
he  will  carry  this  debt  until  he  gets  his  land  very  highly  improved, 
rather  than  pay  it  off  with  his  profits  if  he  has  enough  to  pay  it. 
He  would  rather  build  good  large  buildings,  stock  up  well  with  high- 
grade  stock,  perhaps  raise  orchards  and  things  that  cost  a  great  deal, 
having  his  capital  furnished  by  the  Government  at  a  4  per  cent  rate 
of  interest,  which  will  enable  him  to  have  a  very  much  more  highly 
developed  farm  than  he  would  have  if  he  had  paid  off  his  obliga- 
tion to  the  Government  and  then  had  to  borrow  money  for  these 
improvements  at  a  higher  rate  of  interest.  Many  of  our  settlers 
still  have  a  debt  owing  the  Government  which  draws  practically  no 
interest,  or  very  little  interest,  and  yet  they  have  built  up  a  farm 
worth  $15,000  or  $20,000.  Many  a  farm  is  valued  at  $300  an  acre, 
with  improvements  and  all;  and  much  of  it  is  in  improvements; 
some  of  it  is  in  fertilizing  and  things  of  that  kind.  I  think  a  large 
majority  of  these  men  will  probably  take  advantage  of  the  full  time 
allotted  because  of  those  reasons. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  How  much  do  you  think,  as  an  average,  the  soldier 
could  save  in  a  year  of  employment  on  the  project? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  made  an  average  guess  at  $600  in  answer  to  a  ques- 
tion by  the  gentleman  from  Colorado. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Did  you  hear  the  major's  statement  yesterday  re- 
garding married  men  being  able  to  get  along  just  as  cheaply  as  single 
men  and  save  just  as  much  money,  and  perhaps  more? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  As  I  recall  it,  his  statement  was  that  married  men,  as 
•a  rule,  were  better  employees. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  As  I  remember,  he  said  the  married  man  would  prob- 
ably save  more  money,  or  at  least  as  much  money,  as  a  single  man. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  do  not  agree  with  that  statement  exactly;  I  think 
there  is  a  great  deal  in  what  he  said  about  the  married  man  being 
more  steady  and  prudent,  but  I  do  not  think  there  is  enough  to  off- 
set the  increased  living  expenses  as  an  average. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  When  Mr.  Mondell  was  before  the  committee  he  sug- 
gested that  most  of  these  men  would  be  married  men.  Is  that  so  in 
the  Reclamation  Service? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  presume  the  majority  are  married  men.  I  do  not 
suppose  the  same  rule  would  apply  to  the  soldiers,  because  the  great 
bulk  of  returning  soldiers  are  unmarried. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  501 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Mr.  Mondell  suggested  that  if  they  were  not  married 
they  should  be  married  before  they  go  on  the  project.  Supposing 
they  follow  his  advice  and  raise  a  family;  do  you  think  that  a  man 
raising  a  family  on  one  of  these  projects  at  $1,200  a  year  would  save 
$600  a  year? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Probably  not.    It  might  be  something  less  than  that. 

Mr.  SMITH.  If  he  had  a  cow,  and  chickens,  and  hogs  he  would 
probably  be  able  to  get  along  on  $50  a  month. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  How  much  do  you  think  a  newly  married  man  rais- 
ing a  family  during  this  period  from  three  to  five  years  could  save  ? 
How  much  do  you  think  he  will  save  a  month? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  My  idea  would  be  that  he  could  save  on  an  average — 
this  is  a  very  rough  guess,  and  a  prediction  as  well — about  $40  a 
month  or  $480  a  year.  They  will  not  all  do  that,  of  course;  some 
will  do  better ;  but  if  they  do  average  that  much  it  will  mean  that  in 
about  three  years  a  man  will  be  able  to  make  the  necessary  initial 
payments  to  get  his  loan  from  the  Government  and  begin  as  a  going 
concern,  but  not  more  than  that. 

Mr.  MATS.  There  is  a  question  that  occurs  to  me  now  that  goes  to 
the  administrative  features  of  the  bill.  I  was  talking  with  a  Con- 
gressman from  Pennsylvania  last  night  and  he  raised  an  interesting 
question.  He  said,  as  a  legal  proposition,  how  can  the  Government 
enter  into  a  contract  with  a  soldier  who  has  not  reached  the  age  of 
21  years,  and  I  could  not  answer  the  question. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Anybody  can  enter  into  a  contract  with  a  minor. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Yes;  but  the  minor  can  disavow  it  when  he  comes  of 
age  if  he  wants  to. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Government  permits  them  to  make  entries. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  If  there  is  any  difficulty  about  that,  I  suggest  we 
confer  majority  on  these  soldiers  for  that  purpose. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  can  give  the  authority  to  make  the  contract, 
and  that  will  control  in  all  the  States. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  There  will  not  be  many  of  these  soldiers  who  will  be 
under  21  when  they  come  to  take  advantage  of  this  act.  There  were 
none  under  19  when  they  enlisted,  were  there? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  have  a  nephew  who  is  20  now  and  he  has  just  come 
out  of  the  Army. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  we  are  authorized  to  draft  a  soldier  under  21, 
we  are  authorized  to  enter  into  a  contract  with  him. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  We  could  confer  majority  on  a  very  small  portion 
for  the  purposes  of  this  law. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Mr.  Davis,  have  you  an  estimate  of  the  amortization 
period  after  the  five  years  lapse  when  he  will  not  have  to  make  any 
installments  ?  Have  you  made  an  estimate  of  how  much  that  yearly 
amortization  payment  is? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  computation  has  been  made.  What  this  means, 
as  I  understand,  is  to  require  a  payment  of  interest  and  principal 
«ach  year,  and  those  payments  will  be  equal  through  the  40  years. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  There  is  a  five-year  period  that  will  be  taken  off, 
which  will  make  it  35  years.  I  think  it  would  be  a  good  idea  to  have 
in  the  record  the  yearly  amount  that  the  soldier  would  have  to  pay 


502 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 


as  a  minimum  over  the  35-year  period.     If  anybody  will  supply  us 
with  that  estimate,  it  will  be  very  helpful. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR, 
UNITED  STATES  RECLAMATION  SERVICE, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  June  17,  1919. 
Hon.  N.  J.  SINNOTT, 

Chairman  House  Committee  on  Public  Lands, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

MY  DEAR  MR.  SINNOTT  :  You  will  recall  that  at  the  time  of  rny  last  appear- 
ance I  was  requested,  at  the  instance  of  Mr.  Elston,  to  supply  a  statement  re- 
garding the  amortization  payment  that  the  soldier  settler  would  be  called  on 
to  make  under  the  plan  outlined  in  H.  R.  487.  I  have  had  this  computation 
made  and  am  inclosing  herewith  a  small  table  which  you  may  wish  to  incor- 
porate in  the  hearings.  The  discussion  regarding  it  occurs  at  the  end  of  my 
testimony  sent  herewith. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

A.  P.  DAVIS,  Director. 

Equal  annual  payments  necessary  to  meet  costs  of  $4.000,  $5,000,  and  $6,000 
farm  icith  down  payment  of  5  per  cent  and  interest  of  4  per  cent,  payable 
annually,  on  deferred  payments  for  periods  of  20  to  40  years. 


Cost  of 
farm. 

Cash 
payment, 
5  per  cent. 

Annual  equal  installments. 

20  years. 

25  years. 

30  years. 

35  years. 

40  years. 

$4,000 
5,000 
6,000 

$200.00 
250.00 
300.00 

$279.43 
349.29 
419.  15 

$243.22 
304.03 
364.84 

$219.  75 
274.69 
329.63 

$203.03 
253.79 
304.55 

$191.93 
239.91 
287.99 

In  case  of  a  farm  costing  $5,000,  under  the  terms  of  H.  R.  487  the  settler 
would  make  a  down  payment  of  $250  and  pay  $239.91  each  year  for  40  years 
if  that  period  be  used  for  repayment. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  W.  I.  Drummond,  chairman  of  the  board  of 
governors  of  the  International  Farm  Congress,  of  Oklahoma,  is 
here.  Mr.  Ferris  has  requested  that  he  be  given  an  opportunity  to 
present  his  views  before  the  committee. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  W.  I.  DRUMMOND,  CHAIRMAN  OF  THE  BOARD 
OF  GOVERNORS  OF  THE  INTERNATIONAL  FARM  CONGRESS, 
OKLAHOMA. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
I  represent  the  International  Farm  Congress,  which  now  also  in- 
cludes and  has  incorporated  with  it  the  Dry-Farming  Congress  and 
the  Irrigation  Congress;  At  the  last  annual  session  of  these  com- 
bined organizations,  held  at  Kansas  City  last  October,  the  plan  of 
soldiers'  settlements,  which  we  then  knew  as  the  Lane  plan,  was 
given  very  thorough  consideration.  The  plan  was  indorsed,  I  think 
unanimously.  If  there  were  any  objections  they  were  not  recorded. 
The  congress  was  truly  representative,  I  believe  I  may  say,  of  the 
actual  farmers  of  not  less  than  a  dozen  States,  principally  west  of 
the  Mississippi  River.  I  find  that  I  do  not  have  with  me  the  resolu- 
tion that  was  adopted  at  that  time,  so  that  I  will  have  to  ask  you 
to  take  my  word  for  it,  or  I  could  furnish  the  resolution  later  if  it  is 
of  enough  importance. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  503 

Mr.  FERRIS.  "Would  you  mind  supplying  it  to  the  committee? 

Mr.  DRUMMOXD.  I  could  mail  it  to  you;  it  will  take  a  few  days. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  wish  you  would. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Now,  as  we  understand  the  proposed  legislation, 
the  bill  of  Mr.  Mondell  very  fairly  represents  the  ideas  that  were  in- 
dorsed by  the  delegates  to  and  the  members  of  the  International 
Farm  Congress  at  Kansas  City  last  October.  We  see  nothing  in 
this  bill  that  will  endanger  the  interests  of  agriculture  if  it  is  passed 
as  it  now  stands.  The  point  that  concerns  us  at  this  time  is  what 
amendments  will  be  made  to  this  bill  and  what  will  be  the  effect  of 
those  amendments?  We  believe  that  bill  is  a  good  one ;  that  no  harm 
can  come  to  anyone  from  its  passage.  It  may  fall  short  of  taking 
care  of  all  the  soldier  boys  in  the  way  they  want  to  be  taken  care  of. 
but  we  can  not  see  how  it  wTill  prevent  additional  legislation  being 
enacted  to  take  care  of  the  soldiers  who  will  not  be  taken  care  of  by 
this  bill. 

I  claim  that  the  farmers  of  the  United  States  are  as  patriotic  as 
any  other  class  of  people.  They  will  welcome  to  their  ranks  as 
many  of  these  boys  who  come  back  from  Europe  and  who  want  to 
reenter  business  life,  as  can  be  received  into  the  vocation  of  farming 
without  upsetting  economic  conditions.  But  if  you  change  this  bill 
so  that  even  20  per  cent  of  these  soldiers,  or  those  who  have  not  been 
doing  farming  and  have  no  farm  to  go  back  to,  are  induced  to 
take  up  farms  and  given  possession  of  farms  which  are  not  now  in 
cultivation,  we  fear  the  result.  We  do  not  believe  it  will  be  fair  to 
the  farmer,  to  the  present  agricultural  interests,  nor  to  the  soldiers 
themselves,  because  you  gentlemen  are  too  familiar  with  the  result 
of  a  little  overproduction  of  any  commodity  not  to  know  what  the 
effect  will  be. 

Almost  invariably  a  large  crop  of  any  commodity  sells  for  a  less 
number  of  dollars  than  a  small  crop.  Overproduction  would  not 
only  play  havoc  with  the  farmers  now  in  that  business,  but  would 
also  work  against  the  soldiers  wrhom  we  want  to  put  on  the  farms. 
Under  this  bill  we  do  not  believe  a  sufficient  number  of  farmers  will 
take  up  this  proposition  to  make  it  serious  in  that  way;  but  if,  as 
we  have  heard,  the  bill  is  going  to  be  changed  so  that  you  will  ad- 
vance the  soldier  100  per  cent  or  make  the  conditions  of 'these  larger 
projects  so  attractive  that  they  will  all  rush  there,  it  will  not  be  fair. 
If  you  were  to  offer  any  of  these  soldiers  who  wanted  to  take  ad- 
vantage, of  it  a  bank  on  40  years'  time  and  make  it  possible  for  him 
to  go  into  the  banking  business,  the  bankers  would  protest.  If  you 
tried  to  make  bricklayers  out  of  all  of  them,  the  bricklayers  would 
protest.  So  the  farmers  whom  I  represent  here  to-day  present  this 
thought :  That  however  this  legislation  comes  through,  do  not  let  it 
be  in  such  a  way  as  to  disarrange  or  overturn  the  present  economic 
status  of  the  farm. 

Mr.  SMITH.  What  percentage  of  the  soldiers  dp  you  think  could  be 
absorbed  in  agricultural  lands  without  disturbing  the  agricultural 
condition  of  the  country  with  reference  to  farm  products? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  That  depends  on  what  percentage  you  consider. 
Now,  a  large  number  of  soldiers  came  from  farms  and  can  go  back 
to  farms  without  any  disarrangement ;  but  it  is  the  soldiers  who  have 
no  place  on  farms — that  is  the  element  that  we  have  to  contend  with 


504  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

from  an  economical  standpoint.  As  we  look  at  it,  there  are  two  dis- 
tinct problems  involved :  One  is  an  economic  problem,  the  reclama- 
tion of  waste  places,  which  is  something  that  the  country  is  up 
against ;  the  other  is  a  patriotic  and  sentimental  proposition  involv- 
ing taking  care  of  the  soldiers.  The  farmers  will  go  the  absolute 
limit  in  doing  their  portion  toward  paying  the  debt  the  country  owes 
to  the  soldiers,  but  we  thing  it  is  well  to  sound  a  note  of  caution  at 
this  time  not  to  overdo  this  matter,  speaking  from  the  interest  of 
agriculture  and  from  the  interest  of  the  soldiers  whom  we  expect  to 
put  on  farms. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  measure  would  only  increase  the  farms  1} 
per  cent.  The  population  is  increasing  on  a  much  lager  ratio. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  You  mean  the  bill  as  it  now  stands? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Well  that  bill  has  the  unqualified  approval  of  the 
International  Farm  Congress.  I  am  only  speaking  of  the  amend- 
ments that  we  hear  are  going  to  change  it. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  What  are  some  of  those  changes? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  For  instance,  requiring  no  advance  payment  and 
furnishing  the  soldier  with  100  per  cent  money. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  On  land? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  On  both  land  and  improvements. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  And  letting  him  take  a  segregated  farm  ? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  No;  that  is  not  the  thought.  It  is  that  agri- 
culture can  not  be  expected  to  absorb  all  of  those  men.  That  is  the 
fundamental  thought  I  wish  to  record. 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  census  report  shows  that  the  population  has  in- 
creased 20  per  cent  during  10  years,  and  agriculture  has  increased 
only  about  11  per  cent  during  that  same  period. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  We  are  familiar  with  all  those  figures  and  wo 
are  not  here  to  record  any  protest  against  this  measure  as  it  now 
stands.  We  are  here  to  lend  our  unqualified  indorsement  to  it.  The 
International  Farm  Congress  wants  to  be  read  into  the  record  as 
approving  this  plan  of  taking  care  of  the  soldiers,  and  stating  as 
far  as  it  is  able  to  state  that  agriculture  stands  ready  and  willing 
to  absorb  a  maximum  amount  of  these  soldiers  and  put  the  boys  on 
the  farm. 

Now,  there  is  another  amendment — I  think  it  was  suggested  by 
Mr.  Morgan  and  I  believe  it  is  carried  in  his  bill — to  take  care  of 
some  of  these  soldier  boys  in  urban  homes,  in  homes  in  town.  I  do 
not  know  whether  it  is  practicable  or  not,  but  if  that  is  done  then 
every  soldier  who  is  taken  care  of  in  that  way  would  be  a  customer 
and  not  a  competitor  of  the  man  on  the  farm.  I  simply  bring  out 
that  thought. 

Here  is  another  point :  If  you  can  arrange  this  measure  so  as  not 
to  force  all  these  boys  to  go  into  a  prescribed  district,  but  give  them 
an  opportunity  to  replace  a  tenant  somewhere  in  their  own  States  or 
in  their  locality,  I  think  it  would  be  a  very  fine  thing  and  would 
have  a  tendency  to  solve  the  tenantry  problem.  There  are  other 
farms  that  might  be  used  for  soldiers.  There  are  big  farms  that 
could  be  cut  into  smaller  ones  and  take  care  of  several  soldiers,  and 
let  those  soldiers  replace  a  retiring  farmer  or  a  tenant. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Right  in  our  own  State,  Mr.  Drummond,  suppose  it 
•developed  that  there  was  not  a  feasible  project;  suppose  then1  was 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  505 

not  an  area  large  enough  to  place  a  soldier  colony  on  it.  In  your 
opinion,  should  not  this  measure  be  enlarged  to  the  extent  that  we 
could  make  some  arrangement  to  take  care  of  that  situation,  even 
through  isolated  tracts  interspersed  through  other  settlements? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  If  the  purpose  of  this  committee  is  to  provide  for 
soldiers,  undoubtedly  that  should  be  done,  and  I  do  not  see  how 
any  harm  could  come  from  it.  But,  as  I  say,  the  International  Farm 
Congrass  looks  at  this  thing  as  two  distinct  problems — the  economic 
problem  of  taking  care  of  waste  places,  and  the  other  problem  of 
taking  care  of  the  soldier  boys — and  we  think  you  ought  to  do  a  little 
more  in  view  of  the  economic  problem  than  you  would  have  done 
if  there  had  not  been  one.  It  seems  to  me  you  can  merge  the  two 
and  carry  out  and  build  upon  a  foundation  that  has  been  laid  on 
the  reclamation  service,  and  in  time  to  come,  when  we  are  all  gone, 
this  country  will  find  that  the  foundation  laid  by  the  present 
Reclamation  Service  will  be  a  safeguard  against  food  shortage. 

Mr.  FERBIS.  The  farmers  in  our  State,  then,  are  all  in  favor  of  this 
bill? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  do  not  speak  for  the  farmers  of  Oklahoma  par- 
ticularly, but  for  the  fanners  who  compose  the  International  Farm 
Congress,  including  the  Dry-Farming  Congress  and  the  Irrigation 
Congress. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  that  takes  a  broader  scope. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir.  I  do  not  believe  there  is  a  fair-minded 
farmer  in  my  State  or  any  other  State  who  will  make  a  protest  if  he 
understands 'this  whole  matter,  and  I  would  be  ashamed  to  represent 
a  farmer  who  would  register  a  protest  against  this  bill  or  something 
along  similar  lines. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  While  I  know  that  your  testimony  has  weight  here, 
and  I  appreciate  what  you  have  said  and  I  know  the  committee  has, 
your  testimony  has  been  along  the  side  of  the  interest  of  the  farmer, 
has  it  not? 

Mi-.  DRUMMOND.  Well,  I  speak  for  the  farmers.  I  suppose  when  a 
banker  appears  before  your  committee  he  speaks  for  the  bankers.  Is 
not  that  perfectly  natural  ? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Certainly. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Well,  I  speak  for  the  farmers,  and  when  you 
analyze  it,  this  is  what  it  amounts  to — taking  care  of  the  soldier.  We 
have  4,000,000  men  who  have  been  carrying  guns  and  working  in  the 
different  branches  of  the  Army  and  Navy,  and  we  have  to  absorb 
them  into  the  different  branches  of  industry.  The  question  is,  How 
can  we  do  it  ?  Do  you  want  to  put  them  all  on  farms  ?  I  do  not  be- 
lieve you  do. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  you  did  it,  it  would  increase  farms  50  per  cent. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  do  not  believe  it  could  be  clone  as  easily  as  it 
could  be  worked  out  on  paper,  but  if  you  tried  it  I  think  enough 
soldiers  would  go  there  to  play  hob  with  prices.  Bear  in  mind,  how- 
ever, the  anticipation  of  overproduction  has  just  the  same  effect  on 
prices  as  actual  overproduction. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Was  this  particular  bill,  the  Mondell  bill,  submitted 
to  the  International  Farm  Congress? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  No,  sir.  The  Mondell  bill  was  not  drawn  at  that 
lime,  but  I  can  say  this :  That  I  feel  safe  in  saying  for  the  Inter- 
national Farm  Congress  that  the  Mondell  bill  very  accurately  repre- 


506  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

sents  the  ideas  that  were  indorsed  by  the  International  Farm  Con- 
gress, and  that  this  bill  as  it  now  stands  would  have  met  with  the 
approval  of  that  gathering. 

Mr.  MAYS.  You  had  the  general  plan  before  you  ? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Did  the  International  Farm  Congress  adopt  any 
resolutions  ? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Have  you  a  copy  of  them  ? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  No,  sir ;  not  with  me.  I  did  not  come  to  Washing- 
ton to  appear  before  this  committee.  I  am  here  by  invitation. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Can  you  tell  what  States  were  represented  in  that 
congress  ? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Every  State  west  of  the  Mississippi  River  and 
some  east  of  the  Mississippi  River.  Some  States  like  Kansas.  Mis- 
souri, and  Oklahoma  were  represented  more  heavily  than  those  far- 
ther away.  Of  course,  it  naturally  resolves  itself  on  a  delegate  basis. 
There  were  40  from  Utah,  35  from  Washington,  and  several  hun- 
dred from  each  of  the  near-by  States — Kansas,  Missouri,  and  Okla- 
homa. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Delegates? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir.  Our  work  has  not  stopped  Avith  this 
annual  International  Farm  Congress.  It  is  a  permanent  institution. 
It  keeps  an  office  open  all  the  year  round.  It  has  regular  representa- 
tives and  agents  who  keep  in  touch  with  farmers,  and  it  has  a  regu- 
lar publication.  I  have  investigated  from  50  to  100  wheat  fields  in 
the  last  week. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  long  has  your  organization  been  in  exist- 
ence? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  The  Irrigation  Congress  started  25  years  ago; 
the  Dry-Farming  Congress  started  in  1906;  the  International  Farm 
Congress  was  incorporated  under  the  laws  of  Colorado  in  1915. 
They  have  all  been  brought  together  under  the  name  of  the  Inter- 
national Farm  Congress  and  as  such  have  been  carrying  on  this 
work. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  many  delegates  attended  your  last  meeting? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  There  would  have  been  well  over  5,000,  but,  if  you 
recall,  the  influenza  epidemic  was  on  at  that  time  and  we  were  not 
permitted  to  bring  all  our  delegates  together.  The  influenza  ban 
went  on  at  9  o'clock  in  the  morning  on  the  day  of  the  first  meeting. 
and  the  health  authorities  gave  us  permission  to  assemble  a  suf- 
ficient number  of  delegates  in  the  hall  to  make  it  representative  and 
go  ahead  with  the  business.  This  resolution  was  printed  and  given 
the  widest  publicity  in  our  monthly  publication  and  published 
throughout  all  the  territory  that  we  covered,  and,  so  far  as  I  am  able 
to  determine,  it  met  with  universal  approval,  except  that  they  did 
not  want  to  go  too  far. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Approximately,  how  many  were  present  at  the  last 
convention  ? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Over  2,000. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Over  2.000? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  should  say  3,000;  yes. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Did  you  all  consider  in  your  meeting  the  welfare 
of  the  returning  soldier  ? 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  507 

Mr.  DRUMMOXD.  Absolutely,  and  we  are  ready  to  go  the  limit. 
Under  no  circumstances  do  I  want  to  be  recorded  as  standing  here 
and  throwing  anything  in  the  way.  We  are  for  the  soldier  to  the 
limit. 

Mr.  XICHOLS.  Mr.  Drummpnd,  you  say  if  too  many  soldiers  take 
advantage  of  this  opportunit}",  it  would  be  a  bad  thing  for  the 
farmer  and  also  for  the  soldier? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Certainly;  because  what  is  the  use  of  putting  a 
soldier  out  on  a  farm  under  conditions  where  the  price  will  be  so  low 
that  he  can  not  pay  out? 

Mr.  XICHOLS.  I  agree  with  you  there.  Then  it  would  necessarily 
have  to  be  limited  ? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  XICHOLS.  To  what  extent  do  you  estimate  it  would  have  to  be 
limited? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  That  is  hard  to  tell.  I  think  this  bill  as  it  stands, 
unless  it  is  materially  changed,  is  absolutely  sound  and  sane,  because 
it  affords  an  opportunity  for  a  soldier  who  has  anything  in  him  to 
work  out  and  pull  through. 

Mr.  XICHOLS.  You  mean  that  the  restrictions  in  this  measure  would 
cause  a  great  many  soldiers  not  to  take  advantage  of  it  ? 

Mr.  DRUMMOMD.  I  think  the  restrictions  would  deter  the  man  who 
simply  wants  to  make  a  speculation  of  it.  My  thought  is  this,  that 
the  restrictions  in  this  bill  appear  to  me  to  have  the  effect  of  discour- 
aging the  insincere  man  or  the  man  who  is  thinking  lightly  of  it, 
but  will  give  ample  opportunity  for  the  fellow  who  is  in  earnest  and 
wants  to  do  the  pioneering,  if  pioneering  is  necessary.  It  will 
strengthen  the  reclamation  work  and  be  a  good  thing  all  around. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  If  your  organization  was  preparing  a  bill,  would 
you  limit  this  proposed  Government  aid  to  these  projects? 

Mr.  DRUMMOXD.  Xo,  sir ;  I  think  not.  I  do  not  believe  that  is  fair 
to  the  States,  to  the  localities  near  to  the  soldier.  I  think  where  there 
are  soldiers  who  have  opportunities  in  their  own  neighborhoods  to 
replace  tenants  they  should  be  allowed  to  take  advantage  of  them 
and  be  helped  to  do  so. 

Mr.  SMITH.  If  you  are  going  to  pay  the  market  price  for  farms, 
you  would  have  to  have  a  50  per  cent  basis  for  a  farm,  would  you 
not,  or  60  per  cent  or  70  per  cent? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  My  understanding  is  that  the  Government  pro- 
poses to  buy  this  land  for  the  soldier. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes;  but  the  soldier  must  have  something  to  pay  down 
if  you  are  going  to  buy  the  farm  at  the  market  price. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  do  not  think  that  is  to  be  seriously  considered. 
If  a  soldier  has  absolutely  nothing  and  can  not  get  anything,  the  best 
thing  for  him  is  a  job.  I*f  he  is  worthy,  he  can  accumulate  something, 
or.  if  he  has  relatives,  they  can  help  him.  Xow,  getting  away  from 
the  reclamation  proposition  and  taking  up  the  individual  farm  propo- 
sition, the  relatives  of  these  men  can  help  them,  of  course,  but  it 
might  be  wise  to  divide  this  into  two  sections  and  make  a  provision 
whereby  you  could  extend  50  per  cent,  60  per  cent,  or  70  per  cent 
help  to'  men  who  want  to  buy  a  farm  in  their  own  neighborhood  or 
in  their  own  State.  There  are  undoubtedly  a  lot  of  soldiers  that 
you  are  not  going  to  get  on  these  reclamation  projects  unless  you 
give  them  the  land  and  make  it  so  attractive  by  propaganda  that  they 


508  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

will  flock  to  it.  Then,  the  first  thing  you  know  you  will  have  a  cam- 
paign on  for  free  homes. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  In  what  way  do  you  think  this  is  an  attractive 
measure  to  the  soldiers? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  You  mean  as  it  stands  now  ? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  It  is  attractive  only  to  a  small  per  cent  of  themr 
in  my  judgment. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  per  cent? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  will  fix  the  per  cent.  We  have,  say,  3,500,000 
soldiers. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  We  have  4,000.000. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Well,  a  lot  of  them  will  not  come  back;  a  lot  of 
them  will  reenlist. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  will  say  3,000,000. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  If  you  have  200.000  soldiers  who  will  go  011 
these  reclamation  projects  and  work  this  thing  through  as  business 
men  ought  to  work  it,  you  will  have  fully  as  many  as  we  expect  you 
to  have.  I  will  say  there  are  many  men  in  our  organization  who  have 
given  much  thought  to  this  matter,  and  if  they  thought  this  bill 
would  result  in  a  million  men  wanting  to  get  on  these  projects  they 
would  be  against  it,  in  the  interest  of  the  soldier  as  well  as  in  the 
interest  of  the  farmer. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Or  500,000? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Do  you  not  think  the  other  bill  vou  suggested  would 
add  500,000? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  know  it  would  add  a  good  many.  I  know  per- 
sonally of  a  good  many  boys  who  want  a  farm,  but  not  one  on  a 
reclamation  project.  I  also  know  the  other  class,  restless,  vigorous 
fellows  who  want  to  scrap  with  the  wilderness,  and  this  bill  will 
help  them. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  confine  your  suggestion  of  segregated  farms 
solely  to  supplanting  tenants  ? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  No,  sir.  I  did  not  confine  it,  but  I  say  that  is 
the  way  it  will  work  out.  Now,  when  you  supplant  a  tenant  or  a 
farmer  going  out  of  business,  you  do  not  upset  the  economic  balance. 
That  kind  of  man  will  have  some  money  or  some  relatives  who  will 
furnish  him  with  money.  My  suggestion  is  that  when  a  man  is 
willing  to  go  on  these  projects  and  wrestle  with  the  conditions  he 
finds  there,  you  ought  to  go  the  limit  to  help  him  out.  But  do  not 
stop  there.  Give  a  little  help  to  these  other  fellows  who  want  to 
replace  a  tenant  or  replace  an  old  farmer  who  wants  to  go  out  of 
business.  Then  a  lot  of  them  will  want  to  go  into  different  trades 
in  town,  and  if  the  primary  thought  you  have  in  mind  is  to  take 
care  of  them,  you  can  very  easily  provide  homes  in  town.  I  see  no- 
reason  why  a  project  could  not  be  cut  out  of  40  acres  at  Indianapolis 
or  Kalamazoo  or  anywhere  else.  You  have  got  a  cinch  on  the  finan- 
cial value  of  the  land  because  the  value  will  increase  and  you  can 
never  lose. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  That  is  just  the  point.  The  reclamation  feature  is 
incidental.  The  title  of  this  bill  is  "  To  provide  employment  and 
homes  for  those  who  have  served  with  the  military  and  naval 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  509 

forces  through  the  reclamation  of  lands,  to  be  known  as  the '  national 
soldier  settlement  act.'  " 

Mr.  DBTTMMOND.  Well,  I  apologize  to  the  committee  if  I  have  got- 
ten off  the  subject. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Oh,  no;  I  am  glad  to  hear  what  you  say.  The  bill 
is  to  provide  homes  and  employment  for  the  soldier  on  these  lands. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir.    I  am  speaking  only  of  the  soldiers. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  In  what  way  do  you  believe  this  bill  provides  unusual 
aid  to  the  soldier? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Unusual  -aid  ? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Yes ;  more  opportunity  than  it  would  extend  to  any- 
one else  except  the  soldier? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Well,  it  is  confined  to  soldiers,  is  it  not?  If  it 
has  any  benefit  at  all  it  would  certainly  go  to  the  soldier  and  no  one 
else. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Mr.  Nichols  wanted  you  to  outline  what  advantages 
it  would  give  the  soldier  over  the  ordinary  citizen,  because  the  ordi- 
nary citizen  can  get  a  homestead  or  borrow  from  the  farm-loan  bank, 
and  Mr.  Nichols  wants  to  know  what  does  it  provide  in  addition  to 
that,  especially  for  the  soldier? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Well,  I  repeat,  if  it  does  anything  for  anybody 
it  does  it  for  the  soldier.  If  you  have  a  reclamation  project  from 
wThich  the  ordinary  citizen  is  excluded  it  certainly  gives  the  soldier 
an  advantage;  it  furnishes  him  with  an  outlet  for  his  energy  if  he 
is  an  upstanding  and  aggressive  fellow,  and  tens  of  thousands  of 
them  \vill  go  out  and  wrestle  with  the  wilderness,  performing  a 
great  service  to  the  country  and  doing  a  good  thing  for  themselves. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Let  me  refresh  your  memory  a  moment. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Perhaps  I  did  not  understand  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  It  does  give  them  an  opportunity  to  acquire  a  home  for 
the  first  job,  does  it  not? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir;  it  seems  to  me  that  is  the  way  it  goes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  It  does  give  them  an  opportunity  to  acquire  a  home 
for  the  first  job,  does  it  not? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir ;  it  seems  to  me  that  is  the  way  it  goes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Second,  it  gives  them  an  opportunity  to  acquire  a 
home  on  long  tenure — 40  years? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  assume  the  members  of  the  committee  are  fa- 
miliar with  the  bill  and  realize  that  it  offers  a  job  to  the  soldier. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  But  it  does  authorize  that,  does  it  not? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Sure;  but  I  am  not  here  to  interpret  the  bill. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And,  third,  it  does  authorize  the  soldier  to  borrow 
$1,200  for  improvements? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  $800  for  stock  and  tools? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir;  and,  so  far  as  I  know,  no  other  man 
has  that  same  privilege. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  many  other  citizens  do  not  have  that  oppor- 
tunity? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir.  I  think  that  answers  the  gentleman  s 
question.  I  did  not  quite  get  it  before. 

Mr.  MAYS.  There  is  not  much  money  available  for  the  settler  out 
there  at  4  per  cent,  is  there? 


510  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  do  not  know  of  any.  I  believe  this  is  a  very 
valuable  bill  for  the  soldier. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  believe  that  the  initial  payment  provided 
in  this  bill  is  too  large? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Five  per  cent? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Yes. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  do  not  think  that  makes  much  difference.  I 
do  not  see  why  a  soldier  can  not  pay  5  per  cent. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Well,  the  total  amount  would  be  about  $1,200  aver- 
age initial  payment,  according  to  the  Director  of  the  Reclamation 
Service. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  do  not  believe  so,  gentlemen,  if  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Interior  will  protect  a  man  in  his  selection  until  he  can 
accumulate  the  money.  I  believe  it  has  a  bad  effect  to  go  too  far, 
whether  you  are  talking  to  a  soldier  or  not ;  }TOU  can  carry  the  mat- 
ter of  welfare  too  far,  to  the  detriment  of  the  man  himself.  But,  as 
I  understand  this  bill,  if  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  will  pro- 
tect the  soldier  in  the  selection  of  his  land,  he  takes  a  job  of  work 
on  this  project  and  works  there  three  or  four  months,  which  I 
believe  is  a  wise  provision,  because  in  that  time  he  might  decide 
that  he  does  not  want  to  have  it  any  more. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Mr.  Ferris  says  it  affords  an  opportunity  for  em- 
ployment. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Well,  does  it  not? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  The  statement  made  by  Mr.  Davis  was  to  the  effect 
that  there  are  not  as  many  soldiers  out  of  employment  as  was 
expected. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  think  that  is  true. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  So  that  the  soldier  is  employed  anyway? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  think  that  is  true. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  It  is  not  extending  any  unusual  opportunity,  then? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  It  is  our  understanding  of  that  condition  that 
causes  us  not  to  fear  the  result  of  this  bill.  I  think  this  bill  will 
furnish  the  Reclamation  Service  all  the  soldiers  that  it  can  use. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  you  do  not  believe  there  will 
be  more  than  200,000  who  will  want  to'take  up  projects? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  would  be  very  much  surprised  if  there  were 
more  than  200,000. 

Mr.  MAYS.  You  think  that  is  an  advantage,  however? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir.  Even  if  it  is  only  100,000  it  is  an  ad- 
vantage. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  If  you  can  furnish  homes  for  100,000,  or  200,000  sol- 
diers you  will  have  made  some  success? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  If  you  have  reduced  areas  of  unproductiveness  to 
areas  of  productiveness,  you  have  also  made  a  success  ? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  say  it  might  impinge  upon  the  farmers'  interest 
if  it  is  carried  too  far? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Your  thought  is  that  it  would  be  advisable  to  have 
the  soldiers  retain  their  residence  in  the  several  States,  so  far  as  may 
be,  with  a  view  to  making  them  conversant  with  the  conditions  there  ? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir.    I  do  not  believe  we  should  force  a  sol- 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  511 

dier  to  go  a  thousand  miles  to  relocate  if  he  has  his  friends  nearby, 
and  if  there  is  a  tenant  farm  around  there  that  you  can  help  him 
buy.  I  do  not  think,  however,  that  you  should  give  him  100  per 
cent  in  that  case;  I  do  not  believe  he  would  want  it.  I  would  back 
him  up  on  the  basis  of  second  claim,  or  something  like  that. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  With  that  in  mind,  what  objection  would  there  be  to 
inserting  a  proviso  in  this  bill  that  some  equitable  arrangement 
should  be  made  in  some  of  the  States  so  that  we  would  make  certain 
that  each  of  the  several  States  would  receive  some  relief  for  the 
soldiers  of  their  respective  States? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  believe  that  would  be  wise,  and  I  believe  it 
would  reduce  the  attack  that  is  bound  to  be  made  on  this  bill,  no 
matter  how  it  is  reported  out  of  this  committee. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Would  not  that  suggestion  be  helpful  in  warding  off 
that  very  charge? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  so.  The  International  Farm 
Congress  is  very  anxious  to  have  this  bill  reported  out  in  some  shape 
so  that  it  can  be  passed.  We  do  not  want  it  retarded  in  any  way. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  In  answer  to  my  question  you  heard  Mr.  Davis  say 
that  if  the  soldier  paid  for  his  land  in  40  years  it  would  be  considered 
a  success? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  I  think  so,  for  this  reason :  If  you  gave  him 
400  years  he  would  take  400  years  to  pay  it  out,  if  he  lived  that  long, 
because  the  interest  rate  is  better  than  he  can  get  elsewhere. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Mr.  Davis  said  that  the  40-year  provision  is  in  the 
bill  not  to  give  the  man  an  opportunity  to  use  his  money,  but  for 
the  man  who  would  not  be  able  to  pay  out  in  less  time.  Do  you  con- 
sider that  a  man  who  would  not  be  able  to  pay  out  in  40  years 
would  be  a  success  ? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  He  might  be.  There  would  be  other  conditions 
that  would  affect  the  situation.  As  I  understand  it,  it  is  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  weakest  link  in  the  chain.  Undoubtedly  a  majority  of 
these  people  would  be  able  to  pay  out  in  10  years,  but  you  will  have 
those  who  will  not  be  able  to  pay  out.  You  can  not  say  to  one  man, 
"  You  pay  out  in  10  years "  and  to  another  man,  "  You  pay  out  in 
20  years,"  or  to  another  man,  "  You  pay  out  in  40  years."  The  wire 
has  got  to  be  set  far  enough  away  to  enable  every  man  to  pay  out. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  do  not  think  that  40  years  is  too  far? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  have  made  investigation  and  given  us  your  views 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  farmer.  Have  you  made  any  correspond- 
ing investigation  among  the  soldiers  to  determine  their  desire  for 
this  legislation? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Not  in  the  same  way.  My  testimony  would  not  be 
worth  any  more  than  anybody  else's  on  that.  I  only  know  in  a 
personal  way.  Of  course  we  have  quite  a  number  of  inquiries  from 
soldiers. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  But  not  enough  testimony  to  make  it  valuable? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  No,  sir.    It  could  not  be  considered  representative. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  We  have  in  our  State  90,000  soldiers,  and  the  bulk 

of  them  are  just  getting  back  and  arriving  down  there  this  week. 

There  has  been  no  effort  made  to  take  a  sounding  of  their  views  by 

any  organization  in  our  State  to  find  out  what  they  want,  has  there  ? 

133319—19 33 


512  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  think  not.  The  only  information  I  know  of 
would  be  the  questionnaire  sent  out  by  the  department. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Would  it  be  feasible  to  call  those  soldiers  together  and 
ascertain  what  their  notions  are  on  this  subject,  telling  them  what 
we  are  doing  here  ? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  do  not  see  any  harm  in  it.  It  might  have  a 
good  result. 

Mr.  HERNANDEZ.  Was  this  question  brought  before  the  convention 
at  St.  Louis  ? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  They  indorsed  that  proposition. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  They  did  not  indorse  the  Mondell  bill. 

Mr.  SMITH.  No;  they  indorsed  the  general  proposition. 

Mr.  BEN  HAM.  They  indorsed  the  general  proposition  of  soldiers' 
aid. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Drummond  represents  the  International  Farm 
Congress,  and  his  testimony  is  very  enlightening  to  the  committee, 
and  I  would  like  to  ask  him.  if  he  has  not  already  gone  into  them, 
in  regard  to  the  questions  of  separate  title,  length  of  time  they  should 
hold  their  land,  exemption  from  debt  for  a  certain  length  of  time, 
and  separate  homes.  Has  he  gone  into  that? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  went  into  the  question  of  separate  homes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  question  of  indorsement  goes  to  the  general  fea- 
tures of  providing  a  homestead  for  the  returning  soldier  ? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  as  to  the  question  of  how  they  should  hold  the  title, 
whether  or  not  they  should  simply  have  a  right  to  occupy  it  and  use 
it,  whether  or  not  they  should  live  on  it,  whether  or  not  there  should 
be  a  preference  given  to  any  of  the  soldiers  over  the  others,  as  to 
those  who  should  have  homes — you  have  not  discussed  that,  and  you 
trust  the  committee  to  take  care  of  that? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Oh,  absolutely. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  mean  your  organization  has  not  spoken  upon  that 
subject,  has  it? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  No.  sir ;  but  the  matter  as  it  was  presented  there 
and  as  it  was  argued  quite  at  length,  published  in  our  publication, 
and  discussed  at  other  meetings  is  very  thoroughly  set  forth  in  the 
Mondell  bill. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  went  into  all  its  features? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Oh,  yes;  very  thoroughly.  We  had  both  sides. 
We  had  Elwood  Mead  and  Mr.  King — 

Mr.  RAKER  (interposing).  I  mean  you  went  into  the  question  of 
prior  lien  and  preference  right  and  community  system,  separate 
homesteads,  and  separate  homes? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Those  matters  were  all  brought  out  in  the  dis- 
cussion. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Has  the  organization  presented  its  views  on  those 
subjects  ? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir.  Not  in  detail,  but  it  indorsed  the  plan 
as  presented,  and  my  mission  here  is  to  assure  the  committee  that  we 
are  in  favor  of  the  proposition. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  they  did  not  indorse  any  bill  ? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Oh,  no;  there  was  no 'bill  drawn  at  that  time, 
but  the  Mondell  bill  is  fairly  representative  of  the  things  that  they 
did  indorse,  if  I  make  myself  clear. 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  513 

Mr.  RAKER.  If  that  is  the  case,  I  would  like  to  analyze  a  few  fea- 
tures of  the  bill  if  you  have  done  that. 

Mr.  DRUMMOXD.  That  has  been  done. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  are  in  favor  of  the  general  plan  of  the  soldier 
selling  his  home? 

Mr.  DRUMMOXD.  Xo,  sir;  we  did  not  go  into  that,  but  I  do  not 
see  why  we  should  not 

Mr.  RAKER  (interposing).  Now,  that  is  why  I  wanted  to  be  spe- 
cific as  to  whether  or  not  your  organization  had  taken  up  the  question 
of  giving  the  soldier  the  right  to  sell  his  home  within  a  given  period 
or  whether  the  Government  should  hold  the  title. 

Mr.  DRUMMOXD.  We  assumed  that  the  policies  of  the  past  would 
be  continued ;  that  the  regulations  would  be  reasonable ;  that  in  time 
he  could  sell  it.  We  do  not  believe  it  would  be  a  good  idea  to  let 
him  relinquish  it  at  any  time  he  saw  fit. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Every  homesteader  should  have  a  certain  period  of 
time  to  live  on  his  land  before  he  could  make  a  lien  on  it  or  alienate  it. 

Mr.  DRUMMOXD.  Let  us  see  if  this  answers  your  question.  I  think 
all  of  us  agree  that  the  soldier  should  complete  his  contract  and 
make  payment  before  he  is  at  liberty  to  transfer  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  other  words,  he  should  be  in  such  shape  as  to  pro- 
tect the  Government? 

Mr.  DRUMMOXD.  Absolutely.  We  do  not  believe  there  is  any  occa- 
sion, with  the  rising  value  of  land,  both  in  the  city  and  in  the  coun- 
try, for  the  Government  to  lose  any  money. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Under  the  bill  the  sale,  if  made  within  10  years, 
would  have  to  be  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  ? 

Mr.  DRUMMOXD.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  After  the  man  had  complied  with  the  law  to  the  ex- 
tent that  he  would  have  a  right  to  obtain  a  patent — 

Mr.  DRUMMOXD  (interposing).  Yes;  certainly. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  would  not  want  any  board  or  officer  to  be  a  su- 
pervisor over  him  and  tell  him  how  he  should  sell  his  land,  provided 
the  Government  got  every  dollar  out  of  that  contract? 

Mr.  DRUMMOXD.  Well,  if  there  is  too  much  supervision — 

Mr.  RAKER  (interposing).  You  wo'uld  not  want  any  supervision 
as  to  the  man  selling  his  title  if  the  Government  has  got  all  its 
money  out  of  the  project? 

Mr^  DRUMMOXD.  No.  sir;  not  if  the  Government  protects  its  in- 
terest. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  would  also  be  in  favor  of  legislation  providing 
that  the  land  should  not  be  subject  to  any  debts  incurred  before 
patent?  j.  ,„ .,r 

Mr.  DRUMMOXD.  You  mean  existing  judgments? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Any  debt  contracted  before  patent  should  not  affect 
the  homestead,  the  same  as  in  our  present  homestead  law  ? 

Mr.  DRUMMOXD.  That  point  was  never  raised  because  nobody  pre- 
sumed that  there  would  be  any  difference. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well,  it  would  be  raised,  because  this  bill  does  not  pro- 
vide for  it. 

Mr.  DRUMMOXD.  I  think  it  ought  to  be  in  the  legislation. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then  you  think  that  only  one  tract  of  land  ought  to 
be  in  the  hands  of  one  soldier;  that  no  soldier  should  own  more  than 
one  home  at  any  time  ? 


514  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  think  so.  I  do  not  think  you  should  force  com- 
munity interests  on  those  boys. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  do  not  understand.  For  instance,  one  man 
might  have  enough  money  to  buy  out  several  other  men  and  have 
8  or  10  of  these  homes. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  do  not  think  he  should  be  permitted  to  buy 
anybody  else  out  until  he  has  completed  his  arrangements  with  the 
Government. 

Mr.  BAKER.  But  after  he  has  completed  his  home  and  got  his  pat- 
ent, do  you  think  there  should  be  any  restriction,  that  he  should  not 
own  more  than  one  homestead  at  any  time  under  that  project? 

Mr.  DRUMMOXD.  That  would  be  a  matter  for  the  committee  to  de- 
cide. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  is  your  organization's  view  on  it? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  We  have  not  gone  into  that. 

Mr.  RAKER.  All  right,  then.  We  will  not  go  into  that.  Would 
you  have  all  the  land  cleared,  the  roads  built,  houses  placed  on  the 
premises,  outhouses  and  barns,  the  fields  seeded;  or  would  you  just 
simplj*  have  10  or  15  acres  cleared  and  general  road  building  done, 
with  a  little  modest  house,  outbuilding  and  barn,  and  then  let  the 
soldier  improve  his  place  when  he  went  on  it? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  would  give  the  soldier  the  utmost  latitude  for 
the  exercise  of  his  initiative  in  all  cases. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  would  not  be  in  favor  of  a  completed  farm  all 
cultivated  and  seeded? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  No,  sir.  I  do  not  believe  our  boys  would  need 
anything  like  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  bill  does  not  provide  for  the  seeding. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But,  Mr.  Chairman,  this  pamphlet  does  provide  for 
it,  and  I  wanted  to  see  whether  or  not  that  was  understood  by  the 
balance  of  us. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  thought  you  understood  the  bill  provided  for 
the  seeding  of  the  land. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well,  the  questionnaire  did. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  am  only  speaking  of  the  Mondell  bill.  I  am 
not  talking  about  the  questionnaire. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  wanted  to  know  whether  or  not  your  organization 
went  on  record  on  the  question  of  homesteads  under  legislation  of 
this  character,  whether  it  should  be  a  completed  home  all  cultivated, 
all  fenced,  all  improved,  so  that  he  could  move  right  upon  it.  or 
whether  or  not  it  should  be  just  a  farm  with  the  general  work 
done  in  the  way  of  good  roads  to  and  from  it,  part  of  it  cultivated, 
some  fenced,  the  rest  of  it  raw  land,  and  enough  buildings  to  live  in 
comfort. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Your  question  is,  Did  the  International  Farm 
Congress  consider  that  question? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  No,  sir;  it  did  not. 

Mr.  RAKER.  All  right;  that  settles  that  point.  You  do  not  know 
what  the  organization's  opinion  would  be  on  that? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  think  I  do. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  would  it  be? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  515 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  It  would  be  that  a  minimum  of  work  should  be 
clone  by  the  Government,  and  a  maximum  of  latitude  allowed  the  sol- 
dier for  the  exercise  of  his  initiative. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  think  the  cedar  trees  and  blue  grass  ought  to  be 
left  there  '. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  think  if  the  soldier  prefers  blue  grass  or  Ber- 
muda grass,  Uncle  Sam  ought  not  to  say  he  must  have  some  other 
kind,  unless  he  should  want  to  plant  something  not  suited  to  the 
climatic  conditions. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  know  this  questionnaire  says  it  was  to  be  seeded 
and  improved? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  know  that. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  want  to  read  it  and  ask  the  witness  a  question ;  this 
is  all  in  the  record. 

Mr.  SMITH.  If  Judge  Raker  will  permit  me,  we  have  a  gentleman 
from  Idaho,  Mr.  R.  E.  Shepherd,  of  Jerome,  who  is  experienced  in 
colonization  work  and  is  general  manager  of  a  reclamation  project, 
and  I  would  like  to  have  him  heard  now ;  otherwise  we  can  not  hear 
him  at  all.  as  he  must  leave  the  city  tomorrow. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  AVe  will  hear  him  after  Judge  Raker  is  through 
with  Mr.  Drummond. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  AA'ould  you  mind  sending  to  the  chairman  of  the 
committee  a  copy  of  the  resolution  adopted  by  your  organization? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir ;  I  will  do  that. 

*  The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  already  understood.    Mr.  Ferris  brought 
that  out. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Here  is  what  I  want  to  call  to  your  attention,  reading 
from  page  31  of  the  hearings  before  this  committee,  an  extract  from 
the  questionnaire  sent  out  by  the  Interior  Department  : 

Q.  Now,  how  about  getting  a  home  out  of  this? — A.  After  you  have  helped 
build  the  dams  and  canals,  or  cleared  the  cut-over  land  of  stumps,  or  built  the 
ditches  to  drain  the  swamp  land ;  after  you  have  helped  to  erect  houses  and 
barns,  built  fences,  constructed  roads,  and  laid  out  town  sites,  built  creameries, 
canneries,  warehouses,  schools,  etc. ;  after  you  have  in  fact  actually  reclaimed 
the  land  the  Government  will  allow  you  to  pick  out  one  of  these  farms  planted 
in  crops. 

Xow,  I  am  very  much  interested  in  this  legislation  and  want  to  do 
everything  I  can  to  aid  its  final  enactment  and  make  it  workable; 
but  do  you  believe  that  kind  of  farm  would  be  advantageous  to  the 
boys,  or  one  that  was  just  in  shape  so  that  he  could  work  it  himself? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Judge,  let  me  clear  up  a  point  right  there.  At 
the  conference  in  Secretary  Lane's  office  the  planting  feature  was 
eliminated  from  one  of  the  original  bills  that  contained  it. 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  is  not  in  the  present  bill. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  see  nothing  about  it  in  the  present  bill. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Do  you  understand  my  question? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.'  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  AAThat  is  your  answer  to  it? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  understand  the  substance  of  it,  but  will  you 
please  restate  it? 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  are  not  in  favor  of  putting  the  farm  in  shape 
and  planting  it  before  the  boy  takes  it  ? 

Mr.  DRT:MMOND.  AATe  do  not  believe  it  would  be  necessary  to  do  all 
those  things. 


516  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  in  regard  to  the  preference  right,  do  you  believe 
any  distinction  should  be  given  to  a  young  man  who  has  been  in  the 
service  and  the  law  should  provide  for  his  taking  a  home,  whether 
or  not  he  was  a  fanner  or  blacksmith,  druggist  or  dentist,  before  he 
made  his  application?  Would  you  treat  them  all  alike  if  they  are 
healthy,  competent  young  men?  Would  you  give  them  all  equal 
opportunity  to  take  these  homes  ? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  That  is  a  question — 

The  CHAIRMAN  (interposing).  I  think  he  went  into  that  question 
before  you  came  in,  Judge. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  could  not  answer  for  the  International  Farm 
Congress.  I  could  only  give  my  individual  opinion,  if  you  care  for 
that. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes ;  I  will  take  that. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  do  not  see  how  you  can  consistently  discrimi- 
nate against  anybody.  Because  a  man  has  not  been  a  farmer  does 
not  mean  that  he  will  not  make  a  success  of  farming.  If  he  has 
carried  a  gun  and  performed  his  duty  to  his  country  I  would  hesi- 
tate to  shut  him  out  from  the  benefits  of  this  act.  If  I  were  on  this 
committee  and  had  to  vote  on  it,  I  believe  I  would  hesitate  to  confine 
this  bill  to  a  man  who  had  had  actual  experience  on  a  farm. 

Mr.  MAYS.  The  bill  does  not  so  confine  it. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  understand  the  gentleman's  question  is  not  on 
matters  directly  in  this  bill. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Oh,  yes;  it  is  in  the  bill,  and  I  will  read  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Drummond  will  be  here  a  week,  he  suggests, 
if  you  want  to  ask  him  any  further  questions. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  will  put  this  question  now.  This  gentleman  is  here 
and  has  given  us  some  enlightenment  on  these  matters  and  I  want 
to  ask  a  few  questions  along  this  line. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Mr.  Drummond  will  be  here  to-morrow.  Mr. 
Smith's  witness  is  here  now  and  it  is  almost  1  o'clock  and  he  wants 
to  leave  to-day. 

Mr.  MAYS.  I  move  we  hear  Mr.  Smith's  witness  now  and  recall 
Mr.  Drummond. 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  will  oblige  Mr.  Shepherd  if  this  arrangement  may 
be  made. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Oh,  certainly;  all  right,  then,  I  will  yield  to  my  dis- 
tinguished friend  from  Idaho,  Congressman  Smith. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Mr.  Chairman,  Mr.  R.  E.  Shepherd,  of  Jerome,  Idaho, 
is  here  and  will  be  pleased  to  answer  questions  and  probably  make  a 
statement. 

(Mr.  Shepherd's  statement  will  appear  hereafter.) 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  W.  I.  DRUMMOND— Continued. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Drummond,  Mr.  Raker  desires  to  ask  you  a 
few  questions. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Are  you  in  favor  of  excluding  a  man  from  the  benefits 
of  this  proposed  legislation,  one  of  these  soldiers,  because,  perchance, 
he  should  nave  a  house  or  lot  or  home  in  some  place?  Would  you 
say  to  him :  "  Because  you  have  a  little  home  I  will  not  give  you  this 
farm  "  ? 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  517 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  You  understand  that  any  answer  I  would  give  to 
that  would  have  to  be  on  my  own  responsibility;  that  question  has 
not  been  before  the  International  Farm  Congress.  I  could  only  an- 
swer it  from  my  own  standpoint. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  provision  is  hitting  you  right  in  the  face  in  this 
bill ;  3'our  congress  has  discussed  the  subject  of  this  bill.  I  want  to 
know  whether  or  not  your  congress  was  in  favor  of  that  proposition, 
or  whether  it  should  be  thrown  open  to  every  soldier  who  wanted  to 
take  advantage  of  it,  regardless  of  whether  he  already  had  a  home  ? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  A  number  of  those  minor  questions  were  not  dis- 
cussed in  detail.  It  was  assumed  that  that  would  be  taken  care  of 
in  the  right  way. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  that  is  not  a  minor  question.  For  instance,  here 
ifc  a  soldier  living  on  a  little  ranch  and  can  not  make  a  living  on  it, 
and  this  bill  would  prevent  him  from  going  out  and  taking  a  home- 
stead and  getting  a  start.  You  do  not  believe  that  should  be  in  the 
legislation? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  believe  anything  should  be  in 
the  bill  which  would  work  injustice  to  the  soldier,  and  I  believe  that 
would  be  an  injustice. 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  other  words,  whether  a  man  has  a  home  or  not,  no 
matter  what  the  size  of  it  may  be,  if  you  are  going  to  extend  this  aid 
to  these  soldiers  who  have  served  in  this  war,  and  treat  them  all 
alike,  you  believe  that  anyone  who  wants  to  go  on  these  projects 
under  the  rules  and  regulations  that  may  be  adopted  should  be  given 
a  home  of  his  own  free  choice? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  believe  anything  else  would  violate  the  estab- 
lished policy  of  the  Government.  Do  we  refuse  a  man  a  pension  be- 
cause he  has  got  some  money?  Our  people  have  not  discussed  that 
point,  but  I  feel  that  if  they  had  discussed  it  they  would  say  the  same 
thing. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  think  they  all  ought  to  be  treated  alike  ? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  right,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  what  I  think  about  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  want  to  direct  Mr.  Drummond's  attention  to  the 
exact  language  of  the  bill  just  on  that  point :  "  That  soldiers  who  are 
not  the  owners  or  proprietors  of  farms  or  rural  homes  shall  be 
eligible  as  purchasers."  The  idea  of  that  was  to  supply  a  farm  to  a 
soldier  who  did  not  have  a  farm  or  rural  home. 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  I  will  say  this:  That  no  matter  how  you  settle 
that  phase  of  the  question  it  would  not  alter  the  indorsement  of  the 
International  Farm  Congress  of  this  general  proposition.  I  think 
that  explains  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  indorse  the  general  proposition,  irrespective 
of  little  changes  in  detail  one  way  or  the  other? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir ;  leaving  it  to  the  judgment  of  the  com- 
mittee to  work  those  things  out. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  because  a  man  owned  a  rural  home  or  a  farm, 
you  would  not  exclude  him  from  getting  a  home  under  one  of  these 
projects,  would  you? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  No,  sir:  I  do  not  believe  I  would,  but  I  do  not 
think  he  would  want  one. 


518  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  BAKER.  That  is  not  the  question.  Leave  it  up  to  him.  Are 
you  in  favor  of  this  special  legislation? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  No,  sir ;  personally  I  am  not. 

Mr.  BAKER.  Would  you  be  in  favor  of  giving  a  preference  to 
one  class  of  soldiers  over  another  simply  because  they  worked  on  the 
project? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  We  would  prefer  to  leave  those  matters  to  the 
wisdom  of  this  committee.  As  far  as  I  am  concerned,  as  one  mem- 
ber and  a  representative  of  the  congress,  I  would  prefer  not  to 
discuss  that.  Let  the  legal  talent  and  brains  represented  by  this 
committee  work  it  out.  We  consider  that  a  detail.  We  consider 
everything  a  detail  except  the  measure  itself. 

Mr.  BAKER.  You  consider  everything  a  detail  except  the  measure 
itself? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir;  such  features  as  you  have  mentioned. 

Mr.  BAKER.  Do  you  believe  a  man  should  live  on  his  homestead 
under  this  proposed  legislation? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BAKER.  Now,  we  find  in  there  at  least  seven  of  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  this  bill  that  have  not  been  discussed  by  your 
congress  and  which  you  think  should  be  left  to  this  committee  ? 

Mr.  DRUMMOND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BAKER.  That  is  all ;  thank  you. 

(Thereupon  the  committee  adjourned  until  Saturday,  June  14, 
1919,  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.) 


COMMITTEE  ON  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS, 

HOUSE  OF  BEPRESENTATIVES, 

Saturday,  June  14,  1919. 

The  committee  met  at  10.30  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Nicholas  J.  Sinnott 
(chairman)  presiding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  come  to  order.     Gentlemen 
of  the  committee,  we  have  with  us  this  morning  Secretary  Baker, 
who  has  kindly  consented  to  make  a  statement  concerning  the  bill 
and  whether  or  not  he  approves  of  the  plan  or  disapproves  of  it. 
Mr.  Secretary,  will  you  present  your  views  now  ? 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  NEWTON  D.  BAKER,  SECRETARY  OF  WAR. 

Secretary  BAKER.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  feel  some  embarrassment  in 
coming  before  you  because  I  have  not  been  able  to  get  any  expression 
of  soldier  sentiment  for  your  information.  Col.  Woods,  who  is  re- 
sponsible for  the  whole  question  of  finding  places  for  soldiers,  is  out 
of  the  city  and  immediately  on  his  return  I  will  get  from  him  what- 
ever facts  he  has  acquired  *in  his  contact  with  the  soldiers  and  send 
it  down  for  the  information  of  the  committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  be  very  glad  to  have  it. 

Secretary  BAKER.  Col.  Woods  is  in  touch,  I  think,  with  every 
agency  that  is  finding  places  of  employment  for  soldiers  and  with 
every  group  of  soldiers  seeking  places  of  employment  and  avenues 
of  occupation,  so  that  it  is  entirely  likely  that  he  has  some  infor- 
mation supplementary  to  that  which  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  has 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  519 

put  in  his  letter  to  the  chairman  of  the  committee.  Beyoud  hat  I  do 
not  know  that  I  can  be  of  any  servece,  except  in  two  particulars. 

A  copy  of  this  bill  was  sent  to  my  department,  I  think,  perhaps 
by  the  chairman,  with  the  request  that  certain  phrases  be  examined 
to  see  whether  they  would  be  interpreted  by  our  law  officers  as  in- 
cluding certain  groups  of  persons.  I  have  sent  to  the  chairman  a 
rather  long  letter  suggesting  some  modifications  of  phrase,  purely 
in  the  interest  of  clarifying  the  intention  of  the  bill,  and  not  deal- 
ing with  the  questions  of  the  policy  of  the  bill. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  relates  to  how  comprehensive  this  language 
is  in  the  first  sectional  suppose? 

Secretary  BAKER.  Soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines,  }^es.  That  letter, 
Mr.  Chairman,  ought  to  be  in  your  hands  now.  It  came  down  yes- 
terday and  your  clerk  probably  has  received  it.  It  is  the  work  of 
the  Judge  Advocate  General  and  his  assistants. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  don't  think  it  has  been  received  yet. 

Secretary  BAKER.  It  doubtless  will  be  here  to-day,'  then. 

Generally,  on  the  subject  of  the  purposes  of  the  bill,  of  course,  the 
War  Department  has  a  very  deep  interest  in  the  repatriation  of  the 
soldier,  and  particularly  in  his  opportunity  of  access  to  the  land  if 
it  can  be  secured  for  him.  I  have  read  over  the  bill.  Farming  is  a 
science  about  which  I  know  very  little,  but  it  is  of  fundamental  in- 
terest to  the  country,  of  course,  and  if  the  soldiers  can  be  supplied 
with  opportunities  to  begin  rural  life  and  farming  life  in  an  inde- 
pendent way,  it  is  very  greatly  to  be  desired  and  it  should  be  done. 
So,  I  would  like  the  record  to  show  that  I  express  the  heartiest  con- 
currence in  the  purposes  of  the  bill,  and  the  only  doubt  I  have  about 
it — and  I  venture  that  with  very  great  deference — is  as  to  whether 
the  provisions  in  the  bill  are  sufficiently  elastic  in  the  matter  of  giv- 
ing these  young  soldiers  an  opportunity  to  learn  how  to  farm.  I  am 
inclined  to  think  that  if  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary  of  the  In- 
terior were  somewhat  enlarged,  so  that  he  could  employ  competent 
farmers  as  general  guides  and  directors  and  instructors  of  these 
projects,  that  it  would  be  a  wholesome  thing,  because  I  have  just  a 
little  fear  that  some  of  these  young  soldiers  in  their  enthusiasm  may 
go  out  on  a  project  and  imagine — as  some  people  imagine  that  do  not 
know  anything  about  it — that  farming  is  easy.  Of  course,  farming 
is  a  science. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  the  purpose  of  the  Secretary,  as  I  under- 
stand the  bill,  to  do  just  that  thing  that  you  say  should  be  done. 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  read  the  bill  with  that  particularly  in  mind, 
and  it  seemed  to  me  that  the  discretation  given  him  was  rather 
limited,  and  if  by  widening  his  discretion  there,  competent  instructors 
could  be  provided,  it  would,  of  course,  be  very  desirable. 

The  committee  may  be  interested  to  know  that  in  the  University 
at  Bonne  in  France,  the  American  Expeditionary  Force  University, 
which  is  perhaps  the  most  remarkable  educational  institution  in  the 
world  anywhere  and  at  any  time;  a  university  which  was  set  up  in 
shacks  that  were  built  for  a  hospital  and  were  not  occupied  as  a 
hospital — the  university  was  set  up  immediately  after  the  declara- 
tion of  the  armistice  and  11,000  students  are  in  attendance  at  that 
university.  It  has  11  colleges,  divinity,  law,  medicine,  veterinary 
surgery,  art.  painting,  drawing,  sculpture,  music,  languages,  modern 


520  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

languages,  higher  mathematics.  I  saw  a  doughboy  teaching  integral 
calculus  to  a  group  of  15  or  16  men,  some  of  whom  were  majors  and 
captains,  and  this  private  was  giving  these  superior  officers  lessons 
in  integral  calculus.  It  is  a  most  remarkable  educational  institution, 
quite  the  most  remarkable  in  the  world.  One  of  its  11  colleges  is  a 
college  of  agriculture,  in  which  not  only  ordinary  farming  is  taught. 
but  the  adaptations  of  soil  to  crops, 'theories  of  fertilizing,  farm 
economics,  marketing — a  very  elaborate  and  intricate  course  in  farm- 
ing. When  I  was  at  Bonne  I  went  to  the  agricultural  college,  which 
is  separated  from  the  main  body  of  the  university,  perhaps  six  or 
eight  miles,  and  I  found  it  much  the  largest  of  all  the  colleges  in  its 
attendance.  So,  there  is  that  evidence  of  interest  on  the  part  of 
soldiers  in  acquiring  a  practical  and  scientific  knowledge  of  farming. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  our  soldiers  attend  there? 

Secretary  BAKER.  Yes;  they  are  all  our  soldiers — 11,000  of  our 
soldiers.  And  I  have  no  doubt  whatever  that  the  graduates  of  the 
college  of  agriculture  in  the  American  Expeditionary  Force  Univer- 
sity will  be  very  much  interested  in  any  plan  which  will  enable  them 
to  become  farm  oAvners  and  operators.  It  is  a  very  large  body  of 
men. 

I  think  I  can  add  nothing  further,  Mr.  Chairman,  unless  the  mem- 
bers of  the  committee  wish  to  ask  some  questions. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  any  members  of  the  committee  desire  to  inter- 
rogate the  Secretary  ? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Mr.  Secretary,  has  there  been  an  effort  made  to  take 
any  expression  of  any  sort  from  any  considerable  number  of  soldiers 
as  to  their  desires  after  the  war? 

Secretary  BAKER.  Not  through  the  War  Department.  Mr.  Lane 
has  made  some  such  effort,  and  he  has,  as  I  understand  it  in. his 
reports,  received  favorable  expressions  from  about  50,000.  Those  are 
doubtless  stimulated  by  some  kind  of  a  questionnaire. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  think 'his  testimony  is  that  he  sent  out  250,000  ques- 
tionnaires and  that  52,000  replies  came  back. 

Secretary  BAKER.  Col.  Woods  may  have  made  some  such  inquiry, 
Mr.  Ferris,  but  he  is  out  of  the  city  now. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  He  handles  the  demobilization  and  repatriation  fea- 
tures of  it  in  your  department? 

Secretary  BAKER.  He  handles  the  entire  employment  feature.  He 
is  in  touch  with  the  chambers  of  commerce  and  with  every  agency 
throughout  the  country  that  is  interested  in  getting  the  soldier  back 
to  his  job — labor  and  all. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Could  a  hasty  sounding  of  sentiment  be  made  through 
the  different  commanding  officers,  generals,  etc.,  to  get  at  what  is  in 
the  minds  of  the  soldiers  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  It  would  be  very  difficult  to  get  an  accurate  one, 
because  the  Army  is  67  per  cent  now  demobilized,  and  those  who  have 
disappeared  from  the  Military  Establishment  and  have  been  dis- 
charged, of  course,  it  would  be  very  difficult  to  get  at.  It  would  be 
very  easy  to  take  a  division  like  the  Thirty-sixth  Division,  which  is 
not  yet  demobilized,  and  make  an  inquiry  there. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Well,  they  are  in  process  of  demobilization  now  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  They  are  going  down  to  the  demobilization  camps 
now? 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  521 

Secretary  BAKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  think  they  passed  through  New  York  yesterday, 
and  will  be  in  Texas  in  the  next  day  or  two. 

Secretary  BAKER.  At  every  demobilization  camp  there  is  an  office 
through  which  the  men  go,  and  one  of  the  features  of  that  office  is 
an  employment  section;  and  every  man  who  hasn't  a  job  to  which  he 
is  going  and  knows  about  goes  to  that  employment  section  and  states 
what  kind  of  a  job  he  wants. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  How  effective  and  how  successful  is  that,  Mr.  Secre- 
tary ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  It  is  very  effective  and  very  successful  in  most 
parts  of  the  country.  But.  of  course,  it  would  hardly  be  fair  to 
judge  the  desire  of  the  soldier  to  get  land  by  any  inquiry  he  made 
there,  because  he  doesn't  know  of  any  opportunity  to  get  land. 
Most  of  them  say :  "  I  would  like  to  work  in  an  automobile  factory 
as  a  salesman,  as  a  stenographer/'  or  whatever  the  business  is. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  So  any  of  the  activities  that  you  are  displaying  would 
in  no  wise  complicate  or  run  counter  with  Secretary  Lane's  plan. 

Secretary  BAKER.  Not  in  the  least. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  as  to  the  feasibility  of  it,  and  as  to  any  knowl- 
edge of  what  the  soldier  really  wants  in  connection  with  the  Lane 
plan,  you  think  Col.  Woods  would  have  more  information  on  that? 

Secretary  BAKER.  Col.  Woods  would  have  very  much  better  judg- 
ment on  that  than  I. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Would  it  be  practicable  even  yet — and  I  ask  this 
question  having  in  mind  a  lot  of  testimony  we  have  had  here  in  the 
last  two  or  three  weeks — to  gather  through  the  commanding  officer, 
or  have  the  commanding  officer  explain  this  bill  to  the  soldiers,  this 
plan,  with  the  view  of  getting  some  idea  of  their  position? 

Secretary  BAKER.  It  would  be  entirely  feasible  in  all  undemobilized 
divisions.  There  are  perhaps  three  or  four  divisions  in  the  country 
now  that  are  either  being  demobilized  or  are  about  to  be. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  They  would  be  very  easily  assembled,  of  course  ? 

Secretary  BAKER"!  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Because  only  recently  we  met  the  Thirty-sixth  at  New 
York  and  they  were  assembled,  and  it  could  have  been  very  easily 
done  there.  A  keen  fellow  who  was  in  touch  with  the  men  could 
MTV  quickly  explain  the  salient  features  of  this  bill  and  say  to  them: 
"Do  you  want  it?"  And  obtain  expressions  from  them.  It  could 
have  been  done  with  the  Ninetieth  when  they  came  back.  I  met  the 
Ninetieth  and  they  were  assembled,  and  we  went  in  and  welcomed 
them.  Of  course,'  we  didn't  take  time  to  talk  to  them  about  this 
proposition,  but  I  have  been  thinking,  when  I  heard  you  were  coin- 
ing up  here,  as  to  the  feasibility  of  having  some  man  thoroughly 
conversant  with  this  thing  assemble  these  men,  just  on  the  eve  of 
their  stepping  out  of  military  life  into  civil  life,  and  put  the  salient 
features  of  this  bill  before  them  and  see  if  it  appeals  to  them. 

Secretary  BAKER.  It  would  be  a  very  dangerous  thing  to  do.  Mr. 
Ferris,  unless  it  were  well  done.  For  instance,  if  you  were  to  get  a 
group  of  soldiers  together  and  say :  "  The  Government  has  in  mind 
the  reclaiming  of  arid  or  swamp  lands,  and  is  willing  to  employ  a 
lot  of  you  to  do  the  reclamation  work  and  then  to  locate  you  on  the 
farms/  How  many  of  you  want  to  do  that?"  The  mental  picture 
presented  to  the  mind  of  the  soldier  would  be  the  Everglades  or  some 


522  HOMES  FOE   SOLDIERS. 

arid  country  that  he  doesn't  know  about,  and  he  would  say :  "  Oh, 
that  is  too  far  away;  too  indefinite."  But  if  it  was  carefully  ex- 
plained that  these  areas  are  to  be  in  each  State,  and  the  cooperation 
of  the  State  is  to  be  employed  so  that  a  man  would  not  necessarily 
have  to  move  away  substantially  from  his  own  native  environment, 
I  think  you  would  get  very  different  answers. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  That  is  the  very  point,  Mr.  Secretary.  They  are  get- 
ting a  great  deal  of  misinformation  about  it.  I  have  talked  to  several 
of  them  privately  myself,  and  I  know  that  different  people,  through 
different  avenue,  are  presenting  this  thing  in  as  different  a  light  as  it 
could  be  presented,  and  telling  the  soldier,  as  you  suggest,  that  they 
are  going  to  put  him  in  some  frog  pond  or  sand  dune,  and  that  he  is 
going  to  perish  before  he  can  ever  get  away  from  it.  That  the  next 
soldier  may  figure  that  he  is  going  to  have  a  beautiful  home  and  a 
lawn  in  front  and  a  baby  carriage  and  a  hammock  in  the  backyard, 
and  grapevines  and  trees,  and  everything  else.  He  has  that  kind  of 
a  picture  of  it,  and  my  thought  was  that  inasmuch  as  the  President 
has  come  out  in  his  message  about  it  to  Congress,  and  inasmuch  as 
Secretary  Lane,  who  has  to  do  with  these  plans,  has  displayed  a  great 
deal  of  activity  about  it;  inasmuch  as  Mr.  Mondell,  the  Republican 
floor  leader,  has  introduced  this  bill  and  we  are  having  hearings  on  it, 
I  thought  that  the  diversity  of  knowledge  that  was  being  sent  out 
might  better  be  supplied  by  something  real  and  substantial. 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  venture  to  make  this  suggestion :  Col.  Woods, 
I  think,  will  be  back  on  Monday  morning.  I  will  get  him  to  come 
down  and  tell  you  all  he  knows,  and  then  if  it  seems  to  the  committee 
that  the  question  should  be  addressed  by  telegraph  to  the  command- 
ers of  any  divisions  which  are  as  yet  undemobilized,  to  get  additional 
information,  he  will  send  the  message  and  get  the  information  for 
you. 

Wouldn't  it  be  a  wise  thing,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  put  in  this  bill  some- 
where— my  mind  is  thinking  along  as  I  talk — some  sort  of  provision 
authorizing  cooperation  by  the  Department  of  Agriculture?  They 
have  a  system  of  farm  agents,  as  I  understand  it,  in  the  Department 
of  Agriculture,  by  which  they  send  out  a  large  number  of  agents  who 
go  about  the  country  and  talk  rotation  of  crops  and  explain  soil  con- 
ditions to  the  farmers.  It  might  well  be  that  that  would  be  a  ready- 
made  body  of  instructors  and  aides  that  could  be  used  in  conjunction 
with  this  plan. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  mean  these  county  agents  and  field  demonstrators 
of  the  Department  of  Agriculture? 

Secretary  BAKER.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Secretary,  concerning  your  suggestion  about 
securing  additional  information,  that  recalls  to  my  mind  that  Maj. 
or  Col.  Bashure  was  before  the  committee,  a  demobilizing  officer, 
and  he  stated  that  he  made  inquiries,  and  out  of  some  seven  or  eight 
hundred  men,  87  per  cent  signified  their  desire  for  this  plan;  that  87 
per  cent  out  of  800  men  signified  a  desire  to  take  advantage  of  this 
plan. 

Secretary  BAKER.  Plainly,  that  was  not  the  Seventy-ninth  Division. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No. 

Secretary  BAKER.  That  percentage  would  vary  very  much.  The 
Seventy-ninth  Division  is  from  New  York  City,'  and  those  boys,  of 
course,  all  want  to  get  back  to  the  city  environment  to  which  they  are 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  523 

accustomed,  but  if  you  get  a  division  like  the  Eighty-ninth,  one  of 
those  from  Texas,  Oklahoma,  Arizona — that  part  of  the  country — 
doubtless  you  would  find  a  very  large  number  of  them. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Some  of  these  men  were  from  Kentucky,  as  I  re- 
call it. 

Well,  I  think  the  committee  would  like  to  have  Col.  Woods,  if  we 
can  get  him  next  Monday. 

Secretary  BAKER.  Will  you  meet  on  Monday? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  very  likely  the  committee  will  meet  Mon- 
day morning. 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  will  ask  Col.  Woods  to  put  himself  in  com- 
munication with  your  office,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  find  out  when  it  will 
be  convenient  to  hear  him. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Let  me  ask  you,  Mr.  Secretary,  have  you  any  figures 
on  the  proposition  of  how  many  of  these  soldiers  actually  want  any- 
thing done  for  them  at  all  ?  In  other  words,  how  many  of  them  are 
going  back  to  their  old  channels  of  occupation,  their  old  jobs,  and 
how  many  need  a  job  at  all? 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  have  complete  statistics  of  that.  I  haven't  it 
with  me. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Is  there  a  large  percentage  of  them  that  want  new 
jobs,  or  are  most  of  them  drifting  back  to  their  old  places? 

Secretary  BAKER.  The  number  who  applied  for  aid  in  securing 
employment  is  relatively  small — absolutely  large,  but  relatively  small 
to  the  total  number  demobilized.  But,  of  course,  Mr.  Ferris,  what 
we  have  is  just  their  initial  impulse  as  they  are  being  demobilized. 
Those  boys  think :  "  Well,  when  I  get  back  home,  somebody  will  find 
a  job  for  me,"  and  they  don't  make  any  request,  but  when  they  get 
back  home  and  find  that  jobs  are  not  so  plentiful,  they  begin  to  apply 
to  chambers  of  commerce,  boards  of  industry,  and  things  of  that  sort, 
or  they  get  a  job  through  the  Camp  Activities  Service,  which  they 
don't  like,  and  they  drift  out  of 'that  and  become  seekers  for  employ- 
ment. So  the  record  of  the  camp  would  not  show  the  actual  number 
of  men  who  want  assistance  in  this  way. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  They  sometimes  find  that  the  positions  they  had  have 
been  taken  up  by  others,  and  when  they  get  back  the  situation  is  not 
as  rosy  as  they  thought  it  was. 

Secretary  BAKER.  That  is  it  in  some  cases,  and  then,  of  course,  I 
think  we  have  to  recognize  that  the  returning  soldier  is  an  entirely 
different  man  from  the  man  who  went  away.  He  is  matured  and  is 
very  much  older  than  the  intervening  lapse  of  time  would  suggest. 
He  has  gotten  a  lot  of  education  that"  he  didn't  have  before,  and  he 
feels  himself  fitted  for  more  expert  work  than  he  did  before,  so  that 
they  are  all  seeking  a  higher  type  of  employment,  or  for  the  most 
part  seeking  a  higher  type  of  employment.  It  isn't  any  dissatisfac- 
tion with  old  labor  conditions,  but  it  is  a  new  sense  of  dignity  and 
qualification  in  the  man.  He  is  looking  for  something  more  worthy 
of  his  new  acquirements. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Of  course,  that  is  very  laudable  for  him  to  expect  that, 
but  that  may  lead  to  disappointment  to  him,  too.  becau-e  they  can't 
all  find  the  Utopias  they  dream  of. 

Secretary  BAKER.  Of  course,  that  is  perfectly  true,  mid  yd  1 
want  to  say  just  as  earnestly  as  I  can.  that  my  <.\vn  contact  with  that 
disposition  in  no  sense  shows  a  mere  feeling  on  the  part  of  the  sol- 


524  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

clier  that  having  saved  the  country,  somebody  has  got  to  carry  him 
around  in  the  hollow  of  his  hand.  There  is  none  of  that — less  than 
none — but  there  is  a  very  earnest  feeling  on  the  part  of  the  soldier 
that  by  reason  of  these  qualifying  experiences  he  is  able  to  do  more 
in  civilian  life  than  he  did  before. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  am  glad  you  expressed  that  particular  point.  Mr. 
Secretary.  You  think,  then,  that  he  don't  imagine  he  is  a  demigod 
or  a  superman,  or  anything  of  that  kind,  by  reason  of  the  excellent 
record  he  has  made  across  the  water  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  is  so  amazingly  modest 
that  you  can't  get  one  to  tell  you  what  he  did. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  That  is  a  very  gratifying  statement.  Xow  let  me 
ask  you  another  thing.  Do  you  think  any  considerable  number  of 
them  expect  the  Government  to  give  them  large  sums  of  money 
as  a  gift  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  No;  they  do  not. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Don't  you  think  they  resent  that  idea  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  haven't  heard  any  resentment  of  that.  I 
haven't  heard  any  particular  interest  in  it,  one  way  or  the  other. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Now,  there  are  a  number  of  people  advocating  that 
soldiers  be  given  the  same  amount  of  money  that  they  were  receiving 
when  they  quit  their  jobs  to  fight;  for  that  amount  to  be  given  to 
them  in  a  lump  sum.  There  have  been  a  number  of  pa;x  ,-  ;stab- 
lished,  I  would  say,  advocating  that  particular  proposition.  They 
have  no  sympathy  'for  that  plan,  have  they  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  don't  think  they  have  any  very  ke-n  sym- 
pathy with  it;  but,  of  course,  you  can  get  up  a  paper  based  on  the 
idea  of  giving  any  group  of  people  something  for  nothing,  and  it 
will  be  very  popular  with  that  group  of  people  if  you  keep  at  it  long 
enough. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Is  it  popular  with  the  soldiers? 

Secretary  BAKER.  It  is  not  popular  with  them  yet.  The  inspira- 
tion doesn't  come  from  the  soldiers. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  don't  think.  Mr.  Secretary,  that  the  soldiers 
want  to  be  paid  a  straight  bounty  for  what  they  did  in  the  war? 

Secretary  BAKER.  No;  I  don't  think  so.  I  think  not.  I  think  that 
the  soldier's  feeling  is  that  provision  for  his  necessities  between  the- 
time  of  his  demobilization  and  the  time  of  his  finding  a  job  is  a  just 
assistance  during  the  readjustment  period.  But  I  have  heard  soldiers 
repeatedly  repudiate  the  idea  that  they  were  to  be  taken  care  of  or 
mothered  by  anybody,  the  public  or  anybody  else. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  letters  which  Secretary  Lane  sent  out,  or 
rather  postal  cards,  specifically  stated  and  informed  the  soldier  that 
he  was  not  getting  something  for  nothing;  that  the  land  would  have 
to  be  paid  for  and  paid  for  with  interest. 

Secretary  BAKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Mr.  Secretary,  have  you  any  figures  showing  the 
percentage  of  unemployed  soldiers  returned  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  Yes;  Col.  Woods  has  those  figures.  He  has  no 
figures  that  are  accurate  to  date,  because  that  number  is  shifting  all 
the  time,  for  the  reason  that  men  try  jobs  and  give  them  up  again  and 
switch  from  employed  to  unemployed  and  vice  versa,  but  he  has  a 
very  accurate  account — a  fairly  accurate  account — of  the  number  of 
men  in  each  city  of  the  United  States  who  apply  for  assistance  in 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  525 

securing  jobs  and  who  are  placed  in  jobs.  Those  figures  are  rather 
mystifying  to  me,  because  in  some  cities  they  show  about  120  per  cent 
placements.  That  is,  they  place  20  per  cent  more  than  apply  for 
jobs.  I  don't  know  how  they  work  that  out,  but  I  have  seen  those 
figures  a  number  of  times. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Probably  they  place  some  of  them  twice? 

Secretary  BAKER.  Probably,  and  then  if  he  makes  two  applications 
they  only  credit  him  with  one,  but  if  they  give  him  two  jobs  they  call 
it  two  jobs. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Monthly  Labor  Eeview  of  the  Bureau  of 
Labor  Statistics,  United  States  Department  of  Labor,  April,  1919, 
has  this  statement: 

.The  net  surplus  of  labor  in  the  country  during  this  session  has  been  rising 
at  the  average  rate  of  approximately  100,000  a  week. 

Secretary  BAKER.  What  is  the  date  of  that,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  was  in  April,  1919. 

Secretary  BAKER.  Well,  that  whole  situation  is  changed  now. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Secretary  BAKER.  The  whole  situation  is  changed.  The  opening 
up  of  the  spring  with  the  public  improvements  that  are  possible  to  be 
carried  on  out  of  doors,  and  the  opening  up  of  farm  occupations  has 
changed  that  condition  entirely. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Mr.  Secretary,  do  you  believe  that  a  constructive 
program  of  this  kind  is  needed  in  addition  to  the  emergency  methods 
you  are  using  to  place  the  soldiers  in  employment  when  they  are 
demobilized  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  can't  say  how  far  it  will  be  necessary  to  carry 
this  work  forward.  It  may  well  be  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
will  find  that  he  will  not  have  to  go  as  far  as  the  authority  of  this 
bill  authorizes  him  to  go.  This  is  a  great  constructive  program,  and 
to  that  extent  it  is  good.  It  seeks  to  reclaim  arid  or  swamp  lands,  or 
otherwise  unavailable  land,  and  it  has  the  advantage  of  building  up 
the  national  opportunity  both  against  the  present  demand  and  the 
future  demand. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  It  has  sort  of  a  double  value,  public  benefit,  and  at 
the  same  time  it  gives  the  soldier  an  opportunity  to  acquire  a  home. 

Secretary  BAKER.  It  has  a  double  advantage.  Now,  it  may  well 
be  that  by  the  time  the  Secretary  is  ready  to  administer  this  bill, 
general  industrial  conditions  of  the  country  will  have  become  tem- 
porally or  more  or  less  permanently  such  that  he  won't  find  it  neces- 
sary to  go  very  fast  or  very  far  into  it. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  You  understand  this  is  a  very  elastic  proposition,  and 
is  designed  to  fit  only  the  needs  as  they  appear,  and  of  course  there 
is  no  waste  in  it,  inasmuch  as  the  money  is  not  carried  in  the  bill, 
but  onty  the  authorization. 

Secretary  BAKER.  That  is  what  I  understand,  that  he  is  given  the 
right  to  go' as  far  and  as  fast  as  the  necessity  justifies. 

llr.  ELSTON.  Do  you  think  it  is  a  good  thing,  in  the  way  of  decen- 
tralizing our  population  and  increasing  the  number  of  farmers,  and 
that  as  a  matter  of  policy  and  philosophy,  it  is  well  grounded.  ^ 

Secretary  BAKER.  Well,  I  hardly  think  I  would  be  willing  to  jus- 
tify it  on  that  ground.  I  clon't  believe  that  you  can  artificially  de- 
centralize population.  But  that  is  a  remote  and  speculative  opinion. 


526  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

The  only  way  you  can  decentralize  population  is  by  carrying  the 
conveniences  of  centralized  areas  into  decentralized  areas ;  'building 
good  roads,  motion-picture  shows,  and  trolley  lines :  improving  river- 
transportation.  and  all  that,  so  that  the  man  who  lives  in  the  country 
has  the  advantages  of  the  man  who  lives  in  the  city,  so  far  as  civili- 
zation is  concerned. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Of  course,  the  community  center  idea  involved  in  this 
bill  will  fill  that  requirement. 

Secretary  BAKER.  Undoubtedly  it  contibutes  in  that  way. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  further  questions,  gentlemen? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Mr.  Secretary,  are  you  indorsing  this  bill,  the  idea 
of  it? 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  am  indorsing  the  idea. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  are  not  indorsing  the  details  of  this  particular 
measure  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  No;  I  am  not  commenting  on  that,  because  T 
don't  know  enough  to  know  whether  this  is  the  way  to  do  it  or  not. 
I  am  perfectly  willing  to  rely  upon  the  wisdom  of  the  Interior  De- 
partment and  the  committee  to  do  that. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Have  you  examined  the  details  of  this  bill  sufficiently 
to  give  your  opinion  as  to  the  aid  extended  to  the  soldier  in  the  bill'? 

Secretary  BAKER.  No ;  I  can't  say  that  I  have.  I  have  gone  on  the 
assumption  that  this  bill  provided — it  put  in  operation  an  oppor- 
tunity for  the  soldier  to  work  on  the  land,  making  provision  for 
settlement;  and  second,  to  settle  on  the  land  under  economical  and 
financial  terms  which  were  both  possible  and  advantageous  to  the 
soldier.  Now,  if  it  does  that,  then  it  contributes  to  the  welfare  of 
the  soldier,  in  which  I  am  interested. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  The  high  wages  that  prevail  in  the  country  of  course 
lessened  the  necessity  for  a  measure  of  this  kind,  don't  you  think, 
Mr.  Secretary? 

Secretary  BAKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  In  other  words,  after  the  Spanish-American  "War 
wages  were  very  low  and  men  walked  the  streets  in  idleness ;  so  that 
it  would  seem  to  me  that  now,  with  the  demand  for  labor  and  the 
high  wage  scale  that  prevails,  there  is  less  necessity  for  a  measure  of 
this  kind  now  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  But  even  so,  other  countries  are  offering  opportuni- 
ties to  their  soldiers;  and  it  is  really  up  to  this  country  to  offer 
something  to  the  soldier,  to  give  him  a  chance  to  work  out,  first,  a 
livelihood,  and  then  a  home,  if  he  desires.  Don't  you  think  so  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  Yes ;  it  is  highly  desirable.  The  most  fortunate 
countries  in  the  world  are  those  that  have  unconsumed  agricultural 
opportunities  to  offer  to  their  people. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  of  course,  as  you  suggested  a  moment  ago.  this 
has  two  legs  to  it — an  economic  leg  and  a  patriotic  leg.  In  other 
words,  if  we  can  reduce  unproductive  areas  to  productive  areas,  we 
render  the  country  a  service. 

Secretary  BAKER.  Undoubtedly  we  do. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  if  we  can  offer  the  opportunity  to  acquire  a  home 
on  a  businesslike  basis,  so  that  the  Government  'may  get  its  money 
back  in  days  to  come,  that,  too,  would  be  an  advantage. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  527 

Secretary  BAKER.  It  would  be  very  much  better  than  some  sort 
of  a  gratuity  offered  to  them. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  There  are  some  bills  here,  Mr.  Secretary — and  we  have 
had  some  very  good  men  come  before  this  committee  who  have 
advocated  the  feasibility  of  making  loans,  either  through  the  farm- 
loan  banks  or  through  a  lump-sum  fund  which  would  be  provided 
for,  of,  say,  100  per  cent,  to  the  soldier  and  let  him  buy  the  farm 
wheresoever  he  would,  and  let  him  pay  that  back  in  40  years'  time 
or  50  years'  time  at  a  low  rate  of  interest — something  along  the  line 
of  the  farm-loan  bank — and  they  have  thought  that  that  was  prefer- 
able to  any  colonization  scheme  or  soldier-colony  scheme.  Would 
you  care  to  comment  on  that  phase  of  it?  We  have  had  a  good  deal 
of  testimony  along  that  line. 

Secretary  BAKER.  No;  I  don't  know  enough  to  comment  on  that, 
Mr.  Ferris. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  get  my  thought  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  Perfectly;  but  I  think  it  would  depend  very 
largely  upon  the  quantity  of  available  land  suitable  to  purchase. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Well.,  for  example,  now  in  a  given  State,  we  will  say 
that  under  the  Lane  bill  a  feasible  project,  or  a  feasible  area  of  land, 
on  which  .a  soldier  colony  could  be  established  can  not  be  found; 
then  you  are  face  to  face  Avith  the  alternative  of  having  the  soldier 
leave  that  State  and  remove  and  go  to  a  State  where  he  can  find  a 
feasible  project,  or  offer  him  something  within  that  State. 

Secretary  BAKER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And,  if  you  don't  propose  to  loan  him  the  100  per 
cent,  it  becomes  then  prohibitive  to  the  soldier  who  hasn't  anything. 

Secretary  BAKER.  This  bill  does  not  give  him  100  per  cent. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Well,  it  gives  him  95  per  cent  of  the  land  value  and 
about  75  per  cent  of  the  improvements,  as  I  recall  it. 

Secretary  BAKER.  So  that  he  has  to  make  a  down  payment? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  He  has  to  make  a  down  payment.  And  there  are 
bills,  and  there  are  some  very  able  Members  of  Congress,  and  some 
V;-ry  able  people  out  of  Congress,  who  have  been  before  this  com- 
mittee, and  who  have  been  writing  us  to  the  effect  that  we  ought  to 
present  an  alternative  of  some  sort  in  States  where  there  is  no 
feasible  project,  so  that  the  soldier  might  not  be  forced  to  move  out 
of  Oklahoma  or  Ohio  or  some  other  State  in  order  to  avail  himself 
of  some  other  opportunity  that  the  Government  puts  forward.  You 
have  not  given  enough  attention  to  that  feature  of  it  to  care  to  ex- 
press an  opinion  on  it? 

Secretary  BAKER.  No;  I  have  not. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Mr.  Secretary,  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  as  agreed 
upon  here,  would  make  it  necessary  for  a  soldier  to  pay  approxi- 
mately $1,200  initial  payment  for  the  land. 

Secretary  BAKER.  $1,200  initial  payment? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  That  is  the  land  and  the  improvements. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  That  is  the  initial  payment,  $1,200,  on  the  whole 
proposition,  improvements  and  stock  and  everything.  A  soldier 
without  any  money,  a  penniless  soldier,  would  be  given  employment, 
according  to  the  terms  of  this  bill,  estimated  at  about  $1,200  a  year — 
average  pay  to  a  soldier.  It  is  also  estimated  that  it  would  take  a 
soldier  three  or  four  years  to  save  enough  to  make  the  initial  pay- 
133319—19 34 


528  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

ment  on  the  farm.  Do  you  think  that  is  a  sufficiently  liberal  aid  to 
the  soldier  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  am  not  sure  that  I  understand  it.  He  would 
be  employed  at  approximately  $1,200  a  year  for  three  years? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  No;  he  would  be  employed  at  approximately  $1,200 
a  year.  It  is  estimated  that  he  possibly  could  save  the  amount  of 
the  initial  payment  in  three  or  four  years. 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  should  think  that  was  very  generous.  If  I 
understand  it.  it  takes  a  man.  who  has  nothing,  and  gives  him  em- 
ployment at  approximately  $1,200  a  year  and  places  him  under  cir- 
cumstances of  living  such  that  he  can  probably  save  one-third  of 
his  earnings.  At  the  end  of  three  years  with  his  savings  he  is  in  a 
position  to  make  the  initial  payment  and  to  borrow  the  rest  from 
the  Government  and  go  on  a  farm  under  his  own  ownership. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  initial  payment  would  vary  with  the  project 
and  the  desires  of  the  men. 

Secretary  BAKER.  Undoubtedly,  and  according  to  the  improve- 
ments he  wishes  and  the  amount  of  stock. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  And  the  rate  of  progress  with  which  he  improves  his 
property.  Those  were  maximum  figures  given  to  you. 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  think  that  is  fairly  generous. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  believe  that  a  man  making  $1,200,  a  man 
with  a  family,  could  save  $600  a  year  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  think  he  could  have  it  in  three  or  four  years. 

Mr.  BEN  HAM.  On  the  basis  of  300  days'  labor — and  it  is  to  be 
supposed  this  will  be  outside  work — that  has  been  figured  all  along 
by  the  members  of  this  committee  as  the  number  of  days  a  man 
would  likely  work.  Now,  what  about  that  proposition,  Mr.  Secre- 
tary? You  are  acquainted  with  the  general  climatic  conditions  in 
the  United  States;  is  it  probable  that  a  man  could  work  on  a  farm 
project  300  days  in  a  year  on  an  average  throughout  the  United 
States? 

Secretary  BAKER.  Not  in  farming.  He  could  in  digging  trenches 
and  putting  up  fences  and  that  sort  of  thing. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Would  you  assume  that  he  would  want  to  work  in 
the  rain? 

Secretary  BAKER.  In  the  rain? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  It  would  be  necessary  for  him  to  work  in  rain  or  in 
snow  a  good  part  of  the  time,  if  he  were  going  to  get  in  300  days 
a  year. 

Secretary  BAKER.  He  might  have  to  work  in  the  rain,  but  I  don't 
think  that  would  hurt  him. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  He  has  been  working  in  worse  than  that  over  in  France, 
hasn't  he? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  think  it  would  be  a  more  equitable  propo- 
sition to  extend  aid  to  the  soldier  to  buy  a  home  wherever  he  pleased 
to  buy  it? 

Secretary  BAKER.  Well,  that  is  the  alternative  proposition  which 
I  understood  Mr.  Ferris  put.  I  think  the  answer  to  that  is  that  it 
depends  entirely  on  the  locality  and  as  to  whether  there  are  avail- 
able lands  to  be  purchased  individually. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  They  might  loan  not  only  on  a  farm  but  on  a  home 
in  town  or  a  city.  They  might  extend  a  loan  to  him  at  certain 
interest  to  get  himself  a  home  in  town. 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  529 

Secretary  BAKER.  Of  course  any  plan  which  extended  Govern- 
ment aid  to  a  man  to  buy  a  home,  whether  it  was  a  house  in  a  city 
or  a  farm,  would  be  wider  in  its  effect  than  a  plan  which  limited  it 
solely  to  farms,  because  a  great  many  discharged  soldiers  will  in 
no  case  go  on  farms. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Then  you  believe  that  such  a  proposition  would  be 
more  equitable,  so  far  as  the  great  mass  of  the  soldiers  returning 
are  concerned? 

Secretary  BAKER.  Well,  I  don't  like  to  say  yes  to  that. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  mean  that  you  don't  think  that  is  a  wise 
thing  to  do  ? 

Secretary  BAKER.  No;  I  don't  mean  that  at  all.  It  may  well  be 
that  Congress  ought  to  follow  this  with  some  legislation  of  some- 
what similar  character,  addressed  to  men  who  want  to  acquire  homes 
in  cities  where  they  are  going  to  do  industrial  work. 

Mr.  TILLMAX.  Mr.  Secretary,  that  is  an  entirely  different  propo- 
sition from  this.  You  wouldn't  advise  that  the  two  propositions  be 
brought  together  in  the  same  bill,  would  you? 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  think  not. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Well,  I  was  asking  the  Secretary,  as  the  head  of  the 
War  Department,  whether  he  thought  that  an  opportunity  ought  to 
be  extended  to  every  soldier  who  wants  to  avail  himself  of  the  oppor- 
tunity to  have  a  home  and  to  be  aided  by  the  Government  to  have  a 
home  wherever  he  wants  it,  whether  in  New  York  City  or  out  in  the 
arid  lands  of  the  West. 

Mr.  TILLMAX.  Everybody  understands  that,  but  I  simply  suggested 
that  the  two  propositions  should  not  be  combined  in  this  bill. 

Secretary  BAKER.  Every  soldier  should  have  an  equal  opportunity, 
no  matter  where  is  going  to  live. 

Mr.  TILLMAX.  The  two  propositions  are  entirely  different,  though, 
are  they  not? 

Secretary  BAKER.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  taking  care  of  soldiers  in  a  vocational 
way,  are  you  not,  Mr.  Secretary,  assisting  them  to  learn  trades? 

Secretary  BAKER.  Wounded" soldiers ;  the  well  soldier  is  not  being 
assisted. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Not  all  soldiers,  though  ?  The  crippled  ones  you  are 
giving  a  vocational  education. 

Secretary  BAKER.  All  the  wounded  men  and  sick  soldiers;  yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  there  are  no  further  questions,  Mr.  Secretary, 
we  thank  you  very  much. 

Secretary  BAKER.  I  am  very  happy  to  have  had  the  opportunity  of 
addressing^  you. 

Without  objection,  the  committee  will  now  stand  adjourned  until 
Monday  morning  at  10  o'clock. 

(Whereupon  at  11.10  o'clock  a.  m.,  the  committee  adjourned  until 
10  o'clock  a.  m.,  Monday.  June  16,  1919.) 


HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 


COMMITTEE  ox  PUBLIC  LANDS, 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

Tuesday,  June  17,  1919. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Nicholas  J.  Sinnott 
(chairman)  presiding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen,  Mr.  Wood  of  Indiana,  is  here  and 
desires  to  make  a  statement  with  reference  to  the  bill. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  WILLIAM  R.  WOOD,  A  REPRESENTATIVE 
IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  INDIANA. 

Mr.  WOOD.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  the 
Indiana  delegation  had  a  meeting  the  other  morning  for  the  pur- 
pose of  considering  what  is  known  as  the  Mondell  bill.  I  think  that 
was  the  only  bill  that  was  called  to  their  attention.  I  will  state  very 
briefly  that*  it  was  the  consensus  of  opinion  among  the  members  of 
the  Indiana  delegation  that  the  so-called  Mondell  bill  did  not  meet 
with  their  approval.  Every  member  of  the  delegation  is  heartily  in 
favor  of  doing  something  for  the  soldier.  They  are  in  favor,  how- 
ever, of  doing  something  that  will  be  agreeable  to  the  soldier  pri- 
marily and  not  secondarily.  It  occurred  to  us  that  the  Mondell 
bill  is  prim  aril}-  a  reclamation  project  and,  so  far  as  it  interests  the 
soldiers,  that  is  only  secondary. 

There  have  been  projects  of  reclamation  for  many  years,  and  in- 
dividually I  am  in  favor  of  reclamation  projects,  but  I  believe,  and 
I  think  I  voice  the  sentiment  of  our  delegation,  that  a  reclamation 
project  should  not  be  made  the  basis  of  furnishing  homes  to  return- 
ing soldiers. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Wood,  do  you  prefer  to  finish  your  state- 
ment before  any  questions  are  asked  you  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes ;  I  would  like  to  finish  my  statement  first,  In  other 
words,  that  the  reclamation  projects  should  not  be  mixed  up  with 
any  project  which  might  be  evolved  for  the  purpose  of  helping  re- 
turning soldiers,  or  if  it  is  to  be  mixed  up  the  reclamation  project 
should  be  the  incident  and  not  the  home  for  soldiers  the  incident. 

In  my  opinion  this  project  would  not  be  practicable  in  our  section 
of  the  country.  It  would  be  hard,  indeed,  to  find  any  large  acreage 
of  land  that  could  be  subjected  to  making  homes  for  the  soldiers. 
This  project  might  be  all  right  in  those  countries  where  they  have 
large  areas  of  unoccupied  lands  and  where  they  could  be  obtained  for 
nominal  prices,  and  where  the  settlements,  such  as  indicated  by  this 
bill,  might  be  made  feasible.  I  do  not  think  it  could  be  done,  how- 
ever, in  our  section  of  the  country,  and  I  do  not  think  it  can  be  done 
in  any  of  the  old  States  that  are  now  thickly  settled. 

531 


532  HOMES  FOK  SOLDIERS. 

To  my  mind  whatever  is  clone  for  the  soldiers  should  be  done  with 
reference  to  the  States  and  the  States  should  be  taken  into  considera- 
tion. Every  State  in  the  Union  performed  its  part  in  this  war  and 
performed  its  part  well.  They  have  some  interest  in  the  future  of 
their  citizenship  and  the  young  men  of  their  respective  States.  Some- 
thing should  be  done  so  as  to  enable  the  States,  so  far  as  possible,  to 
keep  within  their  own  borders  these  young  men  and  to  furnish  them 
this  benefit  within  the  State  rather  than  without  the  State.  In  other 
words,  it  is  not  to  the  advantage  of  the  State  of  Indiana  to  subscribe 
to  any  scheme  that  is  going  to  take  her  citizenship  away  from  her 
confines. 

I  believe  a  more  practicable  scheme  would  be,  first,  to  agree  upon 
the  amount  of  money  that  is  going  to  be  devoted  to  the  purpose  of 
assisting  the  soldiers,  and  then  take  and  apportion  that  to  the  States 
in  proportion  to  the  number  of  soldiers  furnished  to  this  war.  Then 
let  each  State  formulate  its  own  plan  for  helping  its  soldiers.  I  do 
not  think  it  is  going  to  be  popular  with  the  masses  of  the  soldiers  to 
say  that  only  a  scheme  shal  be  evolved  that  is  to  help  a  soldier  on  a 
farm,  because  that  will  only  appeal  to  a  very  few  of  them.  We  know- 
that  whatever  percentage  this  scheme  would  appeal  to  would  be  the 
farmer  boys,  and  thousands  and  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands,  to 
my  mind,  of  these  boys  who  went  from  the  farm  to  the  war  will  not 
go  back  to  the  farm  again.  That  was  the  history  of  the  Civil  War 
and  it  was  the  history  of  the  Spanish-American  War,  that  while  the 
country  furnished  a  very  large  percentage  of  the  soldiers  who  partici- 
pated in  those  wars,  a  very  large  percentage  of  that  very  large  per- 
centage did  not  go  back  again  to  the  farms. 

Now,  there  are  lots  of  soldiers  who  would  like  to  buy  a  home  in  a 
town,  who  would  like  to  buy  a  home  adjacent  to  the  place  where  he 
is  working  in  a  shop  or  factory  or  something  of  that  character,  and 
it  occurs  to  me  that  it  would  be  an  unjust  discrimination  to  dis- 
criminate against  that  character  of  soldier  who  is  desirous  of  being 
helped  and  who  is  as  much  entitled  to  help  as  the  other  man.  and 
say  to  him  that  you  can  not  get  this  help  unless  you  go  to  a  farm. 
I  do  not  think  that  that  is  advisable. 

Now,  upon  this  settlement  proposition,  my  observation  and  my 
reading  has  not  been  such  as  to  convince  me  that  it  is  very  prac- 
ticable. It  has  been  tried  in  this  country  time  and  time  again,  and 
has  failed  every  time  it  has  been  tried.  Robert  Daley  Owen  "was 
one  of  the  earliest  men  to  establish  a  settlement  of  that  kind,  and  he 
tried  to  establish  a  socialistic  settlement  down  in  southern  Indiana. 

Mr.  BEXHAM.  New  Harmony. 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes;  New  Harmony,  and  it  failed.  There  have  been 
several  of  these  socialist  settlement  propositions  tried  out  in  tho 
West  and  they  have  all  failed.  There  have  been  some  of  lesser  mag- 
nitude tried  out  in  the  South  and  they  have  failed.  I  dp  not  know 
of  one  that  has  as  yet  proven  a  success.  Perhaps  that  is  no  argu- 
ment that  such  a  thing  can  not  be  done,  but  I  do  not  believe  that  we 
should  bend  our  energies  here  in  taking  advantage  of  this  psycho- 
logical situation  in  projecting  a  scheme  the  primary  purpose  of 
which  is  reclamation,  and  to  my  mind,  that  is  all  that  this  Mondell 
bill  is,  because  the  giving  of  a  home  to  the  soldier  is  simply  an  inci- 
dent. Now,  that  is  the  attitude  our  people  occupy. 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  533 

I  suspect  you  gentlemen  have  read  many  of  the  articles  that  have 
been  submitted  from  time  to  time  by  Mr.  Myron  T.  Herrick  upon 
this  proposition.  I  think  one  of  the  best  things  this  committee  could 
do  would  be  to  get  a  man  who  has  had  the  experience  and  who  has 
made  the  observation  and  has  studied  this  proposition  like  Mr.  Her- 
rick has  done  and  get  the  benefit  of  his  experience  and  judgment. 
There  are  several  others,  I  believe,  whose  testimony  would  be  very 
edifying.  This  is  a  wonderful  project  that  is  being  undertaken,  and 
whatever  project  is  undertaken  ought  to  be  undertaken  intelligently 
and  after  consideration  and  the  formulation  of  a  scheme  that  comes 
from  experience  as  far  as  it  can  be  ascertained  and  from  those  who 
have  studied  this  thing  at  close  range  rather  than  upon  the  advice  of 
anybody  who  has  introduced  a  bill  which  is  the  fulmination  of  some 
.  pet  scheme  of  his  own.  There  is  another  man,  by  the  name  of — 

Mr.  RAKER  (interposing).  What  is  Mr.  Herrick's  scheme? 

Mr.  WOOD.  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  speak  intelligently  about  it, 
but  I  have  in  mind  that  while  Mr.  Herrick  was  abroad  he  studied  the 
German  scheme  over  there  which  had  been  tried  for  years  and 
proven  a  failure.  Now,  what  his  exact  scheme  is  I  do  not  know,  but 
I  simply  cite  the  fact  that  I  know  he  has  given  it  a  great  deal  of 
thought,  and  as  perhaps  some  of  you  gentlemen  know  he  is  a  man  of 
very  good  judgment.  I  suspect  he  is  one  of  the  most  successful  busi- 
ness men  the  United  States  has  ever  produced.  He  evolved  a  banking 
scheme  in  Cleveland  which  is  unparalleled  so  far  as  efficiency  is  con- 
cerned. It  was  a  savings-bank  arrangement,  which  was  to  provide 
homes  for  the  poor  in  the  city  of  Cleveland  and  throughout  Ohio. 
It  has  simply  spread  all  over  the  State  of  Ohio. 

There  is  another  man  by  the  name  of  Wolf  who  is  now  located  in 
New  York  at  53  Chambers  Street,  who  has  tried  this  settlement 
arrangement  in  Los  Angeles  and  throughout  that  country,  and  has 
made  two  or  three  attempts  which  have  failed.  I  remember  some 
time  ago  reading  some  article  written  by  him  in  which  he  was  set- 
ting forth  the  reasons  why  it  failed.  I  do  not  know  now  what 
publication  that  was  in. 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  was  a  private  scheme,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  WOOD.  If  I  remember  correctly,  it  was  private  in  the  respect 
that  it  was  through  an  organization  of  a  lot  of  private  individuals, 
philanthropic  in  their  character,  trying  to  evolve  some  plan  for  the 
purpose  either  of  finding  homes  or  preparing  homes  or  farms  for 
Jewish  people.  I  may  be  mistaken  about  that. 

Mr.  Leonard  Robinson,  wrho  is  the  president  of  the  Federal  farm 
loan  bank  at  Springfield,  Mass.,  has  had  considerable  experience 
in  this  respect,  and  there  is  a  man  who  has  written  a  book  on  this 
proposition,  and  perhaps  you  gentlemen  have  read  this  book — Dr. 
Thomas  Carver,  of  Harvard  University.  It  is  a  textbook. 

Whatever  scheme  is  evolved,  I  think  it  ought  to  be  after  very 
great  deliberation  and  thought.  I  can  not  think  that  the  scheme 
which  is  proposed  by  this  bill  and  which  has  for  its  purpose  the 
reclamation  of  overflowed  lands  or  cut-over  lands  or  arid  lands 
will  ever  appeal  to  the  soldiers.  You  will  not  get  one  out  of  10,000 
of  them  to  ever  undertake  such  a  project. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Just  to  interrupt  you  right  there,  is  it  not  a  fact 
that  the  reason  some  of  these  schemes  were  not  a  success  was  on 
account  of  the  people  who  formed  this  "wolfish"  scheme? 


534  HOMES   FOE   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  WOOD.  Xo;  I  do  not  understand  that  to  be  the  case.  I  do 
not  understand  that  to  have  been  involved  in  any  way  in  that 
scheme.  I  know  it  was  not  so  far  as  the  Robert  D.  Owen  scheme 
was  concerned,  because  if  there  ever  was  a  philanthropic  scheme  in 
the  world  that  was  one  of  them,  and  I  suspect  it  was  tried  out  under 
the  most  advantageous  circumstances,  because  it  was  in  about  the 
richest  country  in  the  world,  and  all  they  needed  to  have  done  in  the 
first  instance  was  to  turn  over  the  ground  and  plant  the  seeds. 
While  it  had  a  mushroom  growth  and  seemed  to  flourish  for  a  time, 
it  went  just  like  all  these  other  schemes  by  and  by. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  May  I  ask  when  that  Owen  scheme  was  tried  out? 

Mr.  WOOD.  It  was  100  years  ago. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Do  you  not  think  conditions  may  have  changed 
very  greatly  since  then? 

Mr.  WOOD.  I  think  they  have,  and  if  they  have  changed.  I  think 
they  have  changed  for  the  worse  so  far  as  such  an  undertaking  is 
concerned. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  And  did  not  that  scheme  have  a  religious  or  a  moral 
philosophy  embraced  within  it  and  as  a  part  of  the  scheme? 

Mr.  WOOD.  That  is  true  to  a  certain  extent.  It  was  not  so  much  a 
religious  spirit  as  it  was  an  educational  spirit,  and  out  of  this  thing, 
I  may  say,  the  first  concrete  form  for  a  free-school  system  in  the 
United  States  was  evolved  and  came  from  Robert  D.  Owen. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  So  some  great  good  came  from  it,  any  way? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Certainly. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Most  of  these  schemes  have  a  socialistic  or  a  com- 
munal proposition  behind  them,  where  the  land  is  held  in  common 
and  there  is  what  you  might  call  a  head  or  chief  who  assigns  occu- 
pations and  who  has  a  sort  of  peculiar  position  in  the  cult  around 
which  this  settlement  is  centered. 

Mr.  WOOD.  That  was  true  so  far  as  the  Robert  D.  Owen  scheme 
was  concerned,  and  this  is  a  paternalistic  scheme  you  are  trying  to 
evolve  here. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Wood,  there  is  not  any  communistic  or  general 
ownership  of  the  land  scheme  in  this  bill.  Is  not  this  for  separate, 
individual  homes,  as  you  understand  the  bill? 

Mr.  WOOD.  But  I  understand  it  is  to  be  on  the  community  plan. 
I  do  not  discover  anything  of  a  socialistic  proposition  in  it,  but  I 
do  discover  much  of  a  paternalistic  proposition  in  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  have  been  trying  to  analyze  that  feature  and  have 
asked  many  questions  on  that  subject.  Do  you  think  there  is  really 
a  community  plan  in  this  scheme? 

Mr.  WOOD.  It  so  states,  and  you  take  the  hearings  all  the  way 
through,  if  I  have  gathered  anything  from  them,  it  is  the  purpose 
to  establish  a  project  here,  there,  and  yonder,  wherever  they  can  find 
enough  land  to  establish  a  project,  where  there  shall  be  a  community 
settlement  of  from  20  to  more  families. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  has  not  been  done  under  any  of  the  projects  so 
far.  For  instance,  take  the  Orland  project  in  California,  where  they 
used  to  be  about  40  families  on  15.000  acres,  there  are  now  750 
families  all  owning  their  private  homes,  just  like  any  other  place. 
Would  you  not  think  a  scheme  like  that  would  be  workable  and 
would  bring  good  results,  if  you  can  put  700  families  on  a  tract  of 


HOMES   FOK  SOLDIERS.  535 

land  of  15.000  acres  where  only  40  families  lived  before,  and  lived 
poorly  at  that? 

Mr.  WOOD.  It  would  depend  largely,  in  the  first  place,  on  the  kind 
of  land  you  put  them  upon.  That  might  work  m  California.  It 
might  not  work  in  Indiana,  or  it  might  not  work  in  Illinois,  and  that 
is  one  of  the  things  I  am  objecting  to  in  this  scheme.  If  there  are 
any  places  where  this  might  be  feasible,  you  are  going  to  take  those 
who  are  entitled  to  receive  the  benefits  away  from  the  places  where 
they  would  desire  to  stay.  My  idea  is  that  whatever  help  we  are 
going  to  give,  we  should  take  to  the  soldier  where  he  is  rather  than 
to  take  him  away  from  his  environments  and  associations  of  his 
friends  and  family,  and  so  forth,  or  at  least  give  him  the  opportunity 
of  staying  there. 

Mr.  MAYS.  How  would  you  get  the  land,  Mr.  Wood,  unless  you 
went  where  the  land  \vas  ' 

Mr.  WOOD.  That  is  why  I  say  it  is  impracticable,  because  of  the 
fact  you  can  not  find  the  land  in  large  bodies.  That  is  the  reason 
Avhy  I  say  there  ought  to  be  something  more  in  this  scheme  than  the 
mere  helping  of  a  man  to  get  a  farm.  For  instance,  take  a  man 
who  is  working  in  a  town  and  is  a  mechanic.  He  was.  perhaps,  a 
mechanic  before  he  went  to  war  and  wants  to  follow  his  vocation. 
Now,  then,  you  say  to  that  man,  "  In  order  for  you  to  receive  any  of 
this  help  you  have  got  to  quit  your  job  as  a  mechanic  and  go  out  and 
commence  something  that  you  know  nothing  about  at  all."  Now, 
I  say  that  that  is  not  a  fair  proposition. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Your  opposition,  then,  to  this  bill  is  mainly  that  it  is 
not  broad  enough  and  does  not  comprehend  the  entire  number  of 
soldiers. 

Mr.  WOOD.  That  is  one  of  the  very  great  objections  to  it  and  that 
is  one  of  the  reasons  why  it  will  not  prove  popular. 

Mr.  GANDY.  Let  me  ask  you  a  question  following  the  question  of 
Mr.  Mays.  Then,  so  far  as  It  goes,  based  on  our  experience  with  the 
reclamation  projects,  it  does  very  well? 

Mr.  WOOD.  I  do  not  believe  in  the  reclamation  project  at  all  as  it 
is  embodied  in  this  bill  in  connection  with  furnishing  homes  to  sol- 
diers. If  my  scheme  which  I  suggested  awhile  ago  was  carried  out, 
I  would  make  an  allotment  to  the  different  States  of  their  propor- 
tionate share  of  this  money  in  proportion  to  the  soldiers  they  fur- 
nished to  the  war,  and  then  in  those  States  where  they  have  large 
bodies  of  land  that  can  be  reclaimed,  let  them  reclaim  it  and  make 
homes  for  the  soldiers  out  of  that  land.  In  those  States  where  they 
have  no  large  bodies  of  land  that  need  reclaiming,  but  where  cheap 
lands  may  yet  be  obtained,  if  it  is  their  desire,  let  them  use  those 
cheap  lands.  In  other  words,  the  people  of  each  community  know 
best  what  to  do  rather  than  people  who  are  scattered  all  over  the 
country  know  better  what  they  should  do.  I  suspect  you  would  think 
it  presumptuous  were  I  to  undertake  to  detail  here  what  would  be  a 
good  scheme  for  California  or  what  would  be  a  good  scheme  for 
Arkansas.  Xew  Jersey,  Florida,  or  South  Carolina. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Why  not? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Although  I  might  know  something  about  what  would 
be  a  good  scheme  for  Indiana. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Wood,  I  was  just  reading  last  night  that  we  have 
60.000  people  from  Xew  York  and,  I  think.  40.000  from  your  State 


536  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

in  California  who  have  gone  there  to  make  their  homes.  Why  should 
we  not  get  the  benefit  of  those  people  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  You  would  get  the  benefit.  Indiana  is  like  Ireland; 
we  have  more  citizens  outside  of  the  State  than  we  have  inside  the 
State.  We  populated  your  country,,  and  the  people  wTho  went  to 
California,  \vho  have  made  that  their  home,  have  made  their  con- 
tribution as  residents  of  California  to  this  war.  They  contributed 
their  sons  to  this  war  as  residents  of  California,  and  that  ought  to  be 
taken  into  consideration.  Those  who  did  not  go  to  California  or 
elsewhere  but  who  remained  in  Indiana  ought  to  have  the  oppor- 
tunity at  least  of  keeping  their  boys  in  Indiana. 

Mr.  MATS.  Mr.  Wood,  what  is  good  farm  land  worth  in  Indiana? 

Mr.  WOOD.  On  the  average,  good  farm  land  in  Indiana  is  worth 
from  $350  to  $450  an  acre. 

Mr.  MAYS.  How  is  a  young  man  without  means  going  to  get  one 
of  those  farms? 

Mr.  WOOD.  He  can  not  do  it.  It  is  proposed  in  this  bill  to  establish 
in  each  State,  if  feasible,  one  of  these  projects.  Now,  it  would  not  be 
feasible  in  Indiana. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Is  that  the  reason  you  oppose  it,  mainly  ( 

Mr.  WOOD.  No:  it  is  not  the  reason.  Even  if  it  was  feasible  I 
would  say  it  would  not  be  fair  to  the  other  States  where  it  is  not 
feasible,  because  of  the  fact  that  I  think  the  State  has  got  something 
involved  in  this  thing.  The  State  has  got  something  involved  in  any 
question  that  has  to  do  with  the  welfare  and  the  continued  welfare 
of  her  citizens. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Should  the  State  insist  upon  holding  the  young  men 
within  the  State*  when  they  could  do  better  outside  the  State? 

Mr.  WOOD.  No ;  and  we  can  not  hold  them  beyond  a  certain  limita- 
tion, but  we  ought  not  to  be  deprived  of  an  equal  opportunity  to 
hold  them.  That  is  the  thing  I  am  complaining  about. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  it  not  true,  Mr.  Wood,  right  in  that  Indiana,  with 
its  dense  population,  and  these  other  Eastern  States  which  have 
contributed  so  largely  and  so  beneficially — and  I  can  not  accent  the 
word  "  beneficially  "  too  strongly — to  the  West,  have  they  not  aided 
in  making  this  country  great  and  even  improving  your  own  State, 
and  should  we  not  continue  that  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes;  I  have  no  objection  to  that  if  you  proceed  upon 
the  theory  that  what  helps  any  one  section  of  our  country  helps  the 
whole  country.  What  I  am  trying  to  get  at,  and  what  I  am  trying 
to  impress  upon  you  gentlemen,  is  that  you  should  not  devise  any 
scheme  here  that  is  going  primarily  to  have  the  effect  of  tearing 
down  rather  than  building  up  each  individual  State  in  proportion 
as  its  demands  should  be  respected. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  all  the  land  in  Indiana  which  is  cultivable  under 
cultivation,  generally  speaking? 

Mr.  WOOD.  No;  there  are  some  lands  in  the  northern  part  of  the 
State  along  the  Kankakee  River  which  are  overfloAved  lands  which 
might  be  good  for  trucking  purposes.  It  never  will  be  good  for 
agricultural  purposes  because  of  the  way  the  soil  is  constituted. 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  addition  to  that,  is  the  land  which  is  now  under 
cultivation  cultivated  to  its  highest  capacity? 

Mr.  WOOD.  No ;  that  is  not  -true  anywhere  in  the  United  States. 


HOMES  FOK  SOLDIEKS.  537 

Mr.  EAKEE.  Now,  that  being  true,  would  you  object  to  a  project 
whereby  you  could  put  1,000  soldiers  in  your  State  upon  some  of 
this  land  by  dividing  it  up  and  letting  them  make  their  homes  there, 
even  if  it  was  expensive  land,  because  you  would  get  returns  that 
would  be  commensurate  with  the  value  of  the  land  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  No;  I  would  not  object  to  that  at  all,  but  that  is  not 
what  would  happen  under  this  law. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  the  purpose  of  it,  Mr.  Wood. 

Mr.  WOOD.  That  is  the  theoretical  purpose  of  it,  but  the  practical 
purpose  of  it  would  be  to  take  them  away  rather  than  to  keep  them 
there.  For  instance,  I  do  not  know  how  large  a  farm  you  have  in 
your  mind,  but  under  the  old  homestead  law  at  the  end  of  the  Civil 
War  we  gave  them  160  acres,  and  that  has  been  enlarged  as  the 

food  lands  have  been  taken  up  and  nothing  left  but  the  culls  until 
think  the  last  homestead  provided  for  a  section  of  640  acres,  and 
it  would  take  several  sections  at  certain  times  of  the  year  to  get  a 
living  off  of 

Mr.  RAKER  (interposing).  I  will  just  say  in  that  connection,  and 
to  add  to  my  question,  that  in  addition  to  the  160  acres  this  same 
soldier  was  given  640  acres  as  a  desert  claim  in  some  places  and  320 
acres  in  others  and  160  acres  of  a  timber-culture  claim  and  160 
acres  of  a  timber  claim  and  160  acres  as  a  preemption.  You  see  he 
was  not  confined  to  a  160-acre  home.  He  could  get  all  of  this  land 
adjoining. 

Mr.  WOOD.  Those  opportunities  are  now  gone.  Speaking  with 
reference  to  the  feasibility  of  anything  of  this  sort  in  Indiana,  you 
could  not  do  that  in  Indiana  because  there  is  not  anything  of  that 
sort  left.  But  suppose  you  should  give  them  160  acres  in  Indiana, 
and  you  were  going  to  form  a  community  of  20  soldiers  in  one  com- 
munity, you  would  have  to  have  1,600  acres  of  land.  You  can  not 
get  that  anywhere  in  Indiana  unless  you  move  somebody  off  of  his 
place,  and  you  can  not  do  that. 

I  understand  some  one  has  proposed  here  condemnation  proceed- 
ings. That  would  be  absolutely  impossible.  Eminent  domain  is  for 
public  purposes  and  not  for  private  purposes.  You  can  not  take 
my  home  and  give  it  to  somebody  else  for  his  home.  You  can  -not 
do  that  in  Indiana  or  anywhere  else. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  do  not  like  to  interrupt  you,  but  you  are  talking 
about  a  very  important  phase  of  this  matter,  and  I  think  it  is  the 
very  crux  of  this  bill.  If  you  took  20.000  acres  in  Indiana  where 
there  are  now,  say,  25  homes,  and  if  you  could  get  those  people  to 
dispose  of  their  land,  and  then  put  it  in  shape  so  that  you  could 
make  homes,  say,  for  200  of  the  returning  soldiers,  would  not  that 
be  a  good  scheme? 

Mr.  WOOD.  If  you  eliminate  the  "  ifs,"  I  would  say  yes ;  but  those 
"ifs"  there  are  absolutely  destructive  of  your  (proposition.  It 
could  not  be  done,  because  you  take  a  person  who  has  a  home  on  a 
farm  in  Indiana,  he  wants  to  stay  on  his  farm.  Patriotism  goes  so 
far  and  then  stops,  and  our  selfishness  begins  to  assert  itself,  and  that 
will  be  true  in  that  case.  I  agree  with  the  gentlemen  that  this  is  a 
wonderful  scheme,  and  it  strikes  me  that  before  we  go  into  this 
venture  at  all  we  ought  to  give  something  to  the  soldier  that  means 
something  and  not  give  him  simply  an  empty  shell.  This  s-heine 
means  nothing  to  the  soldiers  except  a  very,  very  small  percentage. 


538  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  What  would  you  suggest,  Mr.  Wood? 

Mr.  WOOD.  My  suggestion  was  that  if  we  were  going  to  be  at  all 
equitable  in  this  help  to  the  soldiers,  it  would  be  a  fair  proposition 
to  first  agree  on  the  amount  of  money  we  feel  the  Government  can 
give  for  this  purpose;  and.  then,  after  having  agreed  on  that  propo- 
sition, to  take  out  and  apportion  it  among  the  States  in  proportion 
to  the  number  of  soldiers  they  sent  to  the  war,  and  then  let  each 
individual  State  determine  what  is  best  for  them  to  do  to  help  the 
soldiers  in  their  community. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Would  you  limit  that  to  the  soldiers  from  that  par- 
ticular State  or  would  you  have  it  apply  to  all  soldiers  who  might 
flock  in  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  I  would  have  it  apply  to  any  who  might  want  to  com 3 
in,  so  that  if  a  man  desired  to  go  away  from  Indiana  to  your  new 
country  and  take  up  a  farm  there,  he  might  do  it;  or  the  man  who 
lived  in  your  country  might  want  to  come  to  Indiana  and  establish 
his  residence  there. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Would  you  permit  the  State  to  turn  this  money  over  in 
cash  to  the  soldier  and  let  him  do  anything  he  pleased  with  it? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Xo;  I  would  not.  I  would  have  it  fixed  so  that  the 
soldier  would  have  to  understand  that  he  would  have  to  do  some- 
thing himself,  because  any  help  to  a  man  that  does  not  encourage 
that  man  to  help  himself  is  worse  than  no  help  at  all,  and  I  would 
have  it  arranged  in  that  way.  I  believe  it  would  be  feasible  to  have 
this  money  come  back  again  to  the  United  States  Government.  I 
think  the 'States  should  guarantee  the  United  States  that  at  .some 
time,  under  some  arrangement  that  could  be  formulated,  this  money 
should  be  returned  after  a  long  number  of  years. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Would  you  have  all  advances  made  in  all  the  States 
on  a  uniform  basis  or  would  you  allow  the  States  to  decide  on  the 
amounts  to  be  advanced  and  the  rates  of  interest  and  terms,  etc.? 

Mr.  WOOD.  I  would  leave  that  to  each  State  because  ot~  the  fact 
that  these  projects  would  vary  and  the  conditions  in  the  different 
States  would  be  different.  Conditions  that  might  fit  and  be  work- 
able in  the  congested  countries  of  the  East  might  not  be  workable 
in  the  AVest. 

Mr.  MAYS.  After  making  an  allotment  to  one  State,  would  you 
permit  the  soldiers  of  that  State  to  go  to  another  State  and  get  an 
allotment  from  that  State  ? 

Mr.  WTOOD.  Yes;  but  I  would  not  permit  them  to  have  both. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  do  not  think  Mr.  Wood  understood  the  question. 
Would  you  allow7  him  to  get  an  allotment  from  one  State  and  then 
go  to  another  States  and  get  another  allotment? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Xo;  I  just  stated  I  would  not  permit  him  to  take  ad- 
vantage of  both. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Might  not  that  disturb  the  equilibrium  of  the  divi- 
sion? Take  a  good  State  like  Oklahoma,  everybody  might  want  to 
go  there  and  settle,  and  that  State  would  not  have  money  enough  to 
go  around. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  And  might  not  the  States  begin  bidding  against  eaH< 
other  and  bring  about  an  unfortunate  condition  in  that  way  ? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIEES  539 

Mr.  WOOD.  That  is  the  very  objection  I  have  to  this  scheme  of 
yours — because  of  the  fact  that  it  is  giving  a  certain  section  of  the 
country  a  bidding  chance  against  other  sections  of  the  country  when 
they,  in  turn,  have  nothing  to  offer. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Does  not  that  very  fact  tend  to  relieve  the  congested 
conditions  in  this  older  settled  country  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  It  has ;  yes,  sir ;  and  I  firmly  think  that  we  should,  in  so 
far  as  we  can,  keep  up  the  equilibrium  and  encourage  back-to-the- 
farm  propositions. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Mr.  Wood,  referring  to  the  price  of  land  in  Indiana, 
is  it  not  a  fact  that  you  can  buy  whole  counties  out  in  Indiana  at  an 
average  price  of  $50  an  acre  in  some  sections  of  the  State  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  No;  it  is  not. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  think  that  is  so  in  the  southern  part  of  the  State. 

Mr.  WOOD.  You  say  a  whole  county  ? 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Yes ;  at  an  average  price  of  $50  an  acre. 

Mr.  WOOD.  If  that  is  true  at  any  place  at  all,  it  would  be  in  the  hills 
and  hollows  along  the  Ohio  River;  but  who  would  want  to  send  a 
soldier  down  there? 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  They  make  mighty  good  fighters  down  there. 

Mr.  WOOD.  Certainly,  they  make  mighty  good  fighters,  but  they 
can  not  raise  very  big  crops  of  wheat  down  there.  It  may  be  brought 
into  use  later,  because  we  are  discovering  that  we  can  raise  some  of 
the  finest  kind  of  fruit  down  there. 

Mr.  BEXHAM.  They  do  raise  crops  of  tobacco  down  there  that 
bring  $400  an  acre. 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes ;  they  raise  about  one  crop,  and  that  is  about  the 
end  of  that  piece  of  land. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Wood,  you  were  speaking  of  providing  for  the 
soldiers  after  the  Civil  War.  We  really  did  not  make  any  provision 
for  them  any  different  from  anybody  else  as  to  the  right  to  get 
public  land,  with  the  exception  that  they  were  authorized  to  use  the 
time  they  were  in  the  war  to  comply  with  the  provisions  as  to  resi- 
dence on  the  homestead,  and  in  a  few  instances  we  gave  them  scrip. 
Is  not  that  all  we  did  for  the  soldiers  of  the  Civil  War? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes ;  but,  as  some  one  suggested,  conditions  have  very 
materially  changed.  At  that  time  our  country  was  very  largely 
agricultural.  I  have  forgotten  just  what  the  percentage  was,  but  I 
think  it  was  about  80  per  cent;  and  conditions  have  absolutely 
changed  since  then.  Here  is  another  thing:  At  that  time  the  United 
States  Government  owned  large  areas  of  the  best  land  to  be  found 
anywhere  in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  it  was  disposed  of  in  this  way,  not  only  to  the 
soldier  but  to  everybody  else:  First,  he  could  make  a  preemption 
upon  160  acres  by  living  there  six  months,  and  after  having  com- 
pleted his  final  proof,  and  as  soon  as  he  could  get  a  certificate  of 
purchase,  he  could  then  file  a  homestead  of  another  160  acres,  at  the 
same  time  or  after  he  had  completed  his  preemption.  There  is  no 
limitation  except  in  the  proving  up  on  his  homestead.  After  he 
had  proved  up  on  his  homestead  he  could  secure  a  desert  claim  of 
320  acres,  a  timber  claim  of  160  acres,  and  a  timber-culture  claim 
of  160  acres,  while  in  certain  counties  of  the  West  he  could  get 
another  desert  claim  of  640  acres,  making  a  total  of  1,280  acres. 


540  HOMES  FOK   SOLDIERS. 

That  is  the  way  we  treated  all  of  them  when  they  went  to  the  West- 
ern States,  whether  soldiers  or  nonsoldiers.  But  now  things  have 
changed. 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes ;  there  is  no  comparison  that  can  be  made  between 
the  conditions  that  are  presented  to  us  now  in  connection  with  the 
disposition  of  the  soldiers  and  the  condition  that  was  presented  to  us 
at  the  end  of  the  Civil  War. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Have  you  given  any  attention  to  the  drafting  of 
amendments  to  this  bill  of  any  kind  that  would  embody  your  ideas  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  No ;  I  have  not.  I  thought  that  I  would  come  and  voice 
the  sentiment  of  the  delegation  from  Indiana  and  offer  the  sugges- 
tions that  I  have  made.  They  may  or  may  not  be  worthy  of  con- 
sideration. Here  is  what  I  expect  you  will  find :  You  will  find  that 
there  is  about  as  large  a  contrariety  of  opinion  upon  this  subject  as 
there  has  been  on  any  proposition  that  has  confronted  the  American 
Congress  for  a  long  time.  This  difference  of  opinion  is  based  upon 
the  difference  of  conditions  in  the  different  sections  of  the  country, 
and  each  one,  of  course,  is  apt  to  be  more  or  less  selfish  about  this 
thing.  We  are  anxious  to  see  what  the  effect  of  this  will  be  upon  our 
own  particular  locality.  Yet,  at  the  same  time,  as  I  suggested  a  while 
ago,  I  can  not  conceive  of  but  very  few  out  of  the  4,000,000  boys  who 
would  be  entitled  to  receive  benefits  under  this  bill  who  would  take 
advantage  of  them.  I  think  there  would  be  a  very  small  percentage 
of  them  who  would  take  advantage  of  these  benefits. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Wood,  suppose  some  of  these  soldiers  would  like 
to  go  outside  of  many  of  those  prosperous  towns  in  Indiana,  say,  at 
a  distance  of  from  3  to  10  miles,  for  homes,  and  we  should  say  to 
them,  "  You  can  get  a  home  of  an  acre  or  3  acres  of  land  where  you 
can  live  and  go  back  and  forth  to  and  from  your  work  as  a  mechanic, 
blacksmith,  telegraph  operator,  etc."  If  provision  were  made  by 
which  he  could  secure  such  a  home  at  a  cost  of,  I  suppose,  from  $2,000 
to  $3,000,  don't  you  think  it  would  be  a  good  thing  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes;  I  do. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  can  be  done  under  this  bill. 

Mr.  WOOD.  No ;  it  will  not  be  done  under  this  bill. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  know  that  you  are  mighty  keen  on  these  things,  and 
I  want  to  get  the  benefit  of  your  good  judgment  and  experience.  The 
question  is,  if  it  can  be  done  and  it  is  a  good  thing,  then,  it  would 
not  be  a  bad  idea  to  try  it — is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  If  that  wrould  be  feasible,  but  who  knows  where  that 
would  be  feasible  ?  Here  is  another  propositon :  It  would  be  a  good 
scheme  if  you  would  fix  up  some  sort  of  measure  that  would  help  the 
man  who  did  not  want  3  or  4  acres  of  land,  but  who  would 
only  want  a  town  lot  to  live  on  with  his  family.  Suppose  he  has  no 
use  for  3  or  4  acres  of  land.  What  would  you  do  with  that  man  ? 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Mr.  Gandy  asked  a  question  some  time  ago,  but  I 
think  the  question  was  lost  in  the  general  discussion,  and  I  would 
like  to  ask  the  same  thing:  Do  you  approve  of  this  bill  as  far  as  it 


Mr.  WOOD.  No ;  I  do  not  approve  of  it  at  all.  I  do  not  approve  of 
it  because  the  prime  object  of  this  bill  is  reclamation.  That  is  tin- 
prime  purpose  of  this  bill.  This  bill  contains  a  lot  of  things  put 
into  it  to  make  it  fit  the  soldier  proposition,  but  it  is  what  I  have 
understood  as  a  layman  to  be  a  reclamation  scheme. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  541 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  do  you  mean  by  reclamation? 

Mr.  WOOD.  I  was  once  a  member  of  the  Flood  Control  Committee, 
and  the  reclamation  scheme  I  am  most  conversant  with  is  the  scheme 
to  reclaim  the  overflowed  lands  on  the  Mississippi  River,  which 
is  a  wonderfully  worthy  project.  There  is  another  scheme  to-day 
known  as  the  Newlands  scheme  which  is  fashioned  a  good  deal  after 
the  fellow's  cat  farm,  which  was  a  sort  of  automatic  farm  where 
the  cat  would  eat  the  rat  and  the  rat  would  eat  the 
cat  and  the  owner  in  turn  would  get  the  fur.  The  Newlands 
scheme  was  for  the  purpose  of  impounding  all  of  the  waters  on  those 
overflowed  lands  and  using  them  for  watering  the  desert  lands. 
Under  that  scheme  they  would  take  water  from  the  overflowed  lands 
for  the  purpose  of  watering  the  desert  lands,  and  if  that  was  done 
everything  would  be  rosy  and  practicable.  Then,  there  have  been 
various  reclamation  schemes  with  reference  to  cut-over  land  and  with 
reference  to  a  lot  of  Michigan  land  up  there  that  will  not  raise  beans 
and  will  not  raise  anything  in  the  world.  I  have  read  these  hear- 
ings, and  I  call  your  attention  to  the  very  first  part  of  this  bill.  By 
the  third  section  of  the  bill  this  provision  is  made : 

That  the  Secretary  is  authorized  through  such  agency  as  he  may  provide  to 
engage  in  such  undertakings  and  to  do  and  perform  such  work  as  in  his  opinion 
is  necessary  for  the  permanent  reclamation  or  development  of  the  lands  of 
projects,  and  when  he  deems  essential  to  place  them  in  condition  for  use  and 
cultivation,  including  the  building  of  essential  public  roads. 

Now,  what  would  the  present  Secretary  of  the  Interior  do  under 
that?  He  is  so  thoroughly  wedded  to  reclamation  projects  that  he 
has  been  preaching  and  advocating  them  all  over  the  country  in 
speeches,  and  the  authorization  given  by  that  very  clause  would  be 
used  for  those  reclamation  projects. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then,  you  are  not  so  much  opposed  to  the  proposed 
bill  in  the  main,  so  far  as  its  execution  is  concerned,  but  what  you  are 
afraid  of  is  the  enforcement  of  it? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes ;  that  is  what  I  am  afraid  of  under  this  bill,  as  sure 
as  you  are  born. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Let  me  ask  you  one  other  question :  We  have  all  voted, 
and  I  believe  you  have  voted,  to  appropriate  money  for  the  improve- 
ment of  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  Rivers? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  a  long  way  from  the  East  and  a  long  way 
from  the  West.  Now.  if  some  of  these  benefits  came  to  Idaho  and 
resulted  in  the  improvement  of  that  State,  then  it  would  not  be  a  had 
thing  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Xo,  sir;  I  want  some  benefit  to  go  to  Idaho,  some  to 
California,  and  some  to  Indiana. 

Mr.  BARBOTJR.  Are  you  opposed  to  the  bill  because  of  its  reclama- 
tion provisions? 

Mr.  WOOD.  I  am  opposed  to  the  bill  because  reclamation  is  the 
prime  object  of  the  measure.  I  think  that  I  can  see  in  this  bill  till 
that  there  was  in  the  original  reclamation  bill,  or  the  reclamation  bill 
that  was  introduced  into  Congress  some  time  ago. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  For  the  reclamation  of  arid  lands? 

Mr.  WOOD.  That  is  one  of  them.  I  can  see  in  this  bill  all  that  there 
was  in  the  others,  except  for  the  camouflage  that  is  put  about  this 


542  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

bill  for  the  purpose  of  making  it  appeal  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States  as  being  a  help  to  the  soldiers  in  securing  homes. 

Mr.  MAYS.  If  the  lands  at  present  being  cultivated  are  so  high 
priced  that  it  is  impracticable  to  get  enough  of  them  for  soldiers, 
how  are  you  going  to  get  land  except  by  reclamation  or  by  using 
land  that  is  not  now  in  cultivation?  , 

Mr.  WOOD.  That  would  be  all  right.  Out  in  your  State  you  would 
get  a  certain  amount  of  money  from  the  United  States  Government 
for  the  purpose  of  assisting  soldiers  to  get  homes,  and  it  would  be 
feasible  in  your  State  to  use  it  for  the  purpose  of  reclaiming  those 
lands  for  the  soldiers.  But  we  could  not  do  that  in  our  section  be- 
cause we  have  not  the  lands  to  reclaim,  but  we  might  take  our  propor- 
tionate share  of  that  money,  and  procure  farms  here  and  there  with- 
out having  the  community  idea  involved  in  it. 

The  soldier  boy  could  be  placed  on  it  where  he  could  have  a  home 
and  farm,  and  we  might  help  the  soldier  boy  who  is  living  adjacent 
to  a  factory  and  who  wants  to  continue  work  as  a  mechanic  to  get 
a  home.  You  might  help  him,  too.  The  environment  and  problem 
of  each  State  may  be  peculiar  to  itself,  and  the  conditions  as  to  land 
are  such  that  there  is  practically  no  one  set  of  rules  applying  to  one 
that  would  be  absolutely  applicable  to  another,  and  whatever  help 
is  offered  by  the  United  States  Government  ought  to  be  equitable 
so  as  to  help  the  people  of  ever}*  community  in  the  same  degree. 

Mr.  MAYS.  When  you  had  up  the  proposition  to  improve  the  Ohio 
and  Mississippi  Rivers,  you  received  the  help  of  the  entire  country, 
and  our  Western  States  did  not  make  any  question  of  it,  although 
we  did  not  get  any  benefit  from  that. 

Mr.  WOOD.  No;  but  I  will  tell  you  what  you  did  have:  They  in- 
cluded California  in  that  bill  that  provided  for  the  Mississippi 
River  improvement,  and  the  only  appropriation  made  was  for  the 
California  project.  The  war  cam'e  along  and  stopped  all  of  the  other 
work.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  continuation  of  that  work,  and  I  am  in 
favor  of  a  reclamation  scheme  backed  by  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment to  have  effectively  reclaimed  those  overflowed  lands  on  the 
Mississippi  River.  That  would  be  a  success  on  the  basis  of  an  in- 
vestment, and  the  figures  show  that  it  would  bring  in  a  valuable 
return  in  a  short  time.  However,  I  am  not  in  favor  of  making  a 
reclamation  scheme  the  prime  object,  with  a  secondary  object  of 
providing  homes  for  soldiers,  because  the  soldiers  may  not  want  that. 

Mr.  MAYS.  If  he  does  not  want  to,  he  does  not  have  to. 

Mr.  WOOD.  Of  course  not.  Now,  I  think  that  we  are  big  enough, 
or  ought  to  be  big  enough,  to  separate  those  projects.  I  do  not  think 
that  one  of  them  ought  to  be  confused  with  the  other,  for  the  reason, 
as  I  have  stated  before,  each  State  will  have  the  same  interest  in  the 
allocation  of  this  money,  and  the  United  States,  as  the  United  States, 
will,  of  course,  be  interested  in  this  problem. 

Mr.  MAYS.  After  reclaiming  this  land,  would  you  object  to  giving 
the  soldier  a  preference  right  to  a  piece  of  land? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Absolutely  not. 

Mr.  MAYS.  That  is  about  all  that  this  bill  would  do. 

Mr.  WOOD.  No ;  I  think  not.  If  this  thing  should  broaden  out  in 
its  scope,  as  it  could  do,  then  your  $500,000,000  would  not  be  a  drop 
in  the  bucket,  because  of  the  fact  that  the  most  of  this  scheme  that  I 
have  mentioned  is  for  the  reclamation  of  waste  land. 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  543 

Mr.  RAKER.  Let  me  ask  you  one  other  question:  Assuming  that 
your  objection  would  be  good,  that  certain  States  can  not  get  tracts 
of  land  that  can  be  operated  as  a  workable  project  but  that  in  other 
States  there  are  feasible  places  or  feasible  projects  where  land,  water, 
and  climate  combine  to  make  them  workable  so  as  to  provide  homes 
for  at  least  100,000  soldiers  who  are  ready,  willing,  and  anxious  to 
go  upon  that  land,  would  you  not  think  that  would  be  a  good  thing? 

Mr.  WOOD.  I  know  it  would  be  good  for  the  West.  If  we  have 
that  sort  of  idea,  why  not  take  the  United  States  and  divide  it  up 
into  sections? 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  am  opposed  to  sectionalism.  I  am  opposed  to  zone 
systems  of  all  kinds. 

Mr.  WOOD.  I  did  not  mean  to  propose  to  make  of  it  a  sectional  mat- 
ter, but  I  was  referring  to  the  sections  for  the  purpose  of  distributing 
this  money.  You  ought  to  know  as  practical  men  that  this  reclama- 
tion business  or  settlement  is  not  practicable  in  all  sections  under  this 
scheme.  It  is  not  practicable  in  the  State  of  Indiana ;  it  is  not  prac- 
ticable in  the  State  of  Ohio ;  it  is  not  practicable  in  the  State  of  Illi- 
nois, and  I  do  not  think  it  is  practicable  anywhere  in  the  East,  al- 
though it  may  be  practicable  in  this  entire  western  section  of  the 
country.  If  you  want  to  do  this  thing,  why  not  draw  your  line  some- 
where and  work  out  a  practicable  plan  that  would  apply  to  each 
respective  section. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  We  are  informed  that  about  67  per  cent  of  the  soldiers 
have  been  demobilized  and  that  the  rest  of  them  will  be  demobilized 
very  rapidly.  Now,  it  is  your  thought  that  it  is  up  to  the  Government 
to  show  some  appreciation  of  those  soldiers  in  the  form  of  a  bonus  or 
reward,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  it  is  your  thought  that  there  is  a  feeling  among 
the  soldiers  that  something  ought  to  be  done  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Now,  your  thought  is — and  I  confess  that  I  have  been 
somewhat  worried  along  the  same  lines — your  thought  is  that  this 
plan  for  the  colonization  of  the  soldiers  in  groups  on  particular  tracts 
of  land  would  not  be  feasible  in  sections  where  high-priced  lands 
exist  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes ;  that  is  true. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  But  your  thought  is  that  that  might  work  in  the 
Western  States? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And,  perhaps,  in  some  of  the  sparsely  settled  sections 
of  the  Southern  States,  where  lands  can  be  bought  for  three,  four, 
five,  and  six  dollars  per  acre? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Speaking  now  for  the  benefit  of  the  committee,  why 
would  it  not  be  possible  to  preserve  the  good  there  is  in  this  bill  for 
the  Western  States,  and  then  provide  an  alternative  proposition 
along  the  line  of  your  suggestion  that  would  be  applicable  to  States 
where  this  colonization  plan  seems  to  be  unsuitable  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  That  is  the  suggestion  I  offered  to  Mr.  Raker— that  is, 

if  you  can  draw  the  line  or  if  you  can  figure  out  on  the  map  a  plan 

whereby  it  would  be  possible'  to  apportion  or  allot  these  benefits 

among  the  various  sections  of  the  country,  it  should  be  done.    Then, 

133319—19 35 


544  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

in  the  territory  where  it  is  feasible  to  apportion  it  it  should  be  done 
so  that  they  can  apply  it  there  to  suit  themselves. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Would  not  this  be  a  better  plan  than  to  turn  over  a 
lump  sum  to  the  several  States  and  let  them  administer  it  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  It  might  be.  The  only  difference  is  that  this  last  sug- 
gestion is  only  enlarging  the  unit.  I  admit  this,  that  the  general 
conditions  throughout  Indiana,  Illinois,  Ohio,  and  all  that  sec- 
tion— 

Mr.  TAYI/)R  (interposing).  And  Iowa. 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes,  Iowa.  I  expect  they  are  concerned  with  reference 
to  this  thing.  I  think  I  can  see  how  some  scheme  could  be  evolved 
to  cover  all  sections  of  the  country,  but  it  would  be  quite  a  different 
scheme  in  all  this  territory  where  you  have  the  least  area  of  unoccu- 
pied land. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  The  soldier  proposition  being  a  national  proposition, 
would  it  not  be  an  error  to  turn  it  over  to  the  several  governors  of 
the  States? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Some  mistakes  would  be  made,  but  to  my  mind  they 
would  be  infinitely  small  as  compared  with  the  mistake  that  you 
would  make  if  you  adopt  this  general  scheme. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Why  could  not  an  alternative  plan  be  incorporated  in 
this  bill,  preserving  the  colonization  plan  of  settlement  for  the  West- 
ern States  and  making  a  practical  enlargement  of  the  farm-loan  plan 
with  a  view  to  lending  to  the  soldier  in  Indiana,  Illinois,  Oklahoma, 
and  Iowa  a  sum  sufficient  to  enable  him  to  acquire  a  home  isolated  or 
segregated  from  the  rest  or  outside  of  the  colonization  plan  1 

Mr.  WOOD.  That  might  be  done. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Let  me  ask  you  one  other  question — and  I  do  not 
knoAv  whether  it  has  been  already  injected  into  the  record :  What  do 
you  think  of  the  proposition  of  authorizing  the  Federal  Government 
to  make  advances  for  40  years  at  4  per  cent,  tax  exempt,  of  $2,500  to 
each  of  the  4,000,000  soldiers  who  desires  to  avail  himself  of  the 
privilege,  the  soldier  to  apply  it  to  the  acquisition  of  a  home,  with  a 
restraint  upon  the  alienation  of  it  for  the  soldier's  own  protection? 
The  proposition,  stripped  of  all  details,  would  be  for  the  Government 
to  advance  to  each  soldier  $2,500  for  40  years  at  4  per  cent  interest^ 
provided  the  soldier  should  apply  it  to  the  purchase  of  a  home,  such 
loan  to  be  tax  exempt? 

Mr.  WOOD.  What  would  you  do  with  reference  to  security  ? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  The  Government  would  hold  the  land  as  security,  and 
would  place  restrictions  on  alienation  for  the  soldiers'  protection. 

Mr.  WOOD.  That  might  be  feasible,  but  it  would  take  an  awful  lot 
of  money. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  have  figured  it  out,  and  if  every  one  of  the  4,000.000 
soldiers  should  avail  himself  of  this  $2,500  loan  with  which  to  make  a 
payment  on  a  home,  wherever  it  may  be,  whether  in  Indiana,  Idaho, 
California,  or  Maine,  the  total  amount  would  be  $10,000,000,000,  and 
that  is  not  as  much  as  we  have  loaned  the  Allies.  That  does  not  scare 
me.  I  will  state  for  the  record. 

Mr.  WOOD.  It  does  not  scare  me.  I  am  in  favor  of  any  scheme 
which  would  make  each  man  coming  back  from  Franco  a  homo  owner 
in  the  United  States.  That  is  the  best  guarantee  we  have  agaiu>( 
unrest. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  545 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Would  not  that  be  an  equitable  proposition? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes. 

Mr.  MAYS.  After  paying  $2,500  for  a  home  for  the  soldier,  what 
would  you  do  about  giving  him  a  job? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Of  course,  that  is  another  proposition.  Any  proposi- 
tion that  is  going  to  be  suggested  is  going  to  be  fraught  with  many 
difficulties. 

Mr.  MAYS.  A  city  home  is  not  much  of  a  source  of  income. 

Mr.  WOOD.  That  character  of  home,  of  course,  would  be  for  the 
benefit  of  the  soldier  who  wanted  to  live  adjacent  to  his  work. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  It  has  been  suggested  by  Mr.  Smith  that  that  might 
not  bring  about  the  object  of  making  unproductive  acres  productive, 
and  that  might  be  subject  to  criticism,  but  I  do  not  think  that  is 
necessarity  true,  because  why  could  not  a  man  in  Idaho  borrow 
$2.500  from  the  Government  for  the  purpose  of  improving  a  section 
of  land,  or  why  could  he  not  acquire  the  land  if  he  wanted  it? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Would  you  favor  that  $10,000,000,000  proposition 
that  Mr.  Ferris  spoke  of? 

Mr.  WTOOD.  Of  course  it  is  like  the  old  maid  who  was  asked  to 
marry,  it  conies  pretty  sudden,  and  possibly  this  might  work  out  all 
light.  I  am  in  favor  of  making  home  owners  of  the  soldiers  of  this 
country. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Every  soldier  would  feel  that  he  had  a  chance  to  get 
something. 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes,  and  there  is  this  advantage  in  that  proposition,, 
that  there  would  not  be  the  objection  that  would  arise  from  those 
boys  who  do  not  want  to  go  out  and  build  homes  on  reclamation, 
projects.  Thousands  of  them  would  be  heard  to  complain  about 
that,  because  it  would  not  be  giving  them  a  fair  chance. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  spoke  of  those  settlements  on  reclamation 
projects.  Have  you  ever  been  on  one  of  those  settlements? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes,  I  was  on  one  in  Florida  that  I  thought  would  be- 
a  happy  consummation  of  one  of  the  finest  undertakings  ever  sug- 
gested in  our  section  of  the  country. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Where  was  it? 

Mr.  WOOD.  It  was  near  Dupont,  in  Florida.  It  was  in  two  or 
three  counties. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Was  that  a  colonization  plan? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes,  but  it  did  not  work. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  ever  been  on  the  Greeley  settlement  in 
Colorado,  or  on  a  Mormon  settlement  in  Utah  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  No;  I  have  never  been  there.  I  do  not  know  anything 
about  it,  except  in  a  general  way  that  the  Mormons  do  make  effective 
their  undertakings  in  the  establishment  of  colonization  concerns, 
but  we  do  not  want  our  soldier  boys  to  be  Mormons  in  order  to  be 
successfully  colonized. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  do  not  know  anything  about  the  Greeley  set- 
tlement in  Colorado  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  settlement  that 
Mrs.  Lunn  has  referred  to  in  her  statement  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  No. 


546  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  spoke  of  the  Meadowbrook  Farm,  but  the 
trouble  there  was  that  they  had  more  poets  and  philosophers  than 
potato  diggers. 

Mr.  WOOD.  No;  that  was  not  the  case.  It  was  because  of  dissen- 
sions. They  went  along  very  well  for  a  certain  length  of  time,  and  it 
bid  fair  to  be  a  great  success,  but  there  were  dissensions  that  arose 
and  it  simply  went  to  pieces.  That  was  on  the  community  plan,  with 
community  storehouses  and  everything  else. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  have  made  a  great  suc- 
cess in  Colorado  and  in  Utah,  and  on  everyone  of  those  irrigation 
projects  there  is  a  community  settlement.  It  is  perfectly  natural — 

Mr.  WOOD  (interposing).  That  is  why  it  succeeds.  It  must  be  done 
naturally.  That  sort  of  colonization  plan  is  quite  a  different  sort  of 
colonization  plan  from  this. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Your  main  objection  to  this  bill,  I  take  it,  is  on 
account  of  its  being  a  real  reclamation  proposition,  or  a  proposition 
to  remove  stumps,  drain  wet  lands,  and  irrigate  arid  lands  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  That  is  one  of  the  objections,  but  the  chief  objection  is 
that  it  will  not  do  for  the  soldier  what  the  Government  intends  should 
be  done  or  what  the  people  of  the  country  desire  to  be  done  for  the 
soldier. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  that  is  not  the  sole  purpose 
of  the  bill.  Let  me  explain  to  you  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
and  every  man  who  has  appeared  before  this  committee,  and  every 
writer  upon  this  subject  refers  to  lands  in  the  Eastern  States,  North- 
east, and  North,  aside  from  the  West.  Those  States  have  been  re- 
ferred to  as  containing  idle  lands  and  tenant  farms.  It  is  the  pur- 
pose of  this  bill  to  take  up  such  places,  and  the  Secretary  of  the  In- 
terior has  repeatedly  referred  to  a  great  area  that  can  be  taken  up 
in  the  Northern  States.  He  spoke  of  land  within  50  miles  of  the 
city  of  Washington.  It  is  an  absolute  misrepresentation  to  dub 
and  stigmatize  this  bill  as  being  solely  for  reclamation  purposes. 

Mr.  WOOD.  In  answer  to  that,  I  will  say  that  all  of  the  working 
•machinery  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  this  project  is  left  in  the 
hands  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  The  governors  of  the  States  are  named  and  the  Farm 
Loan  Board,  and  they  are  to  approve  and  select  each  one  of  these 
projects  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  the  price  and  determining  the 
method. 

Mr.  WOOD.  I  think  that  is  after  it  is  selected,  and,  after  all,  it  is 
ultimately  left  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  determine  whether 
or  not  a  project  shall  be  selected  in  any  State.  That  is  what  I  am 
objecting  to. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Director  Davis,  of  the  Reclamation  Service,  was 
before  the  committee,  and  he  stated  that  the  projects  that  could  be 
taken  up  the  earliest  and  the  cheapest  lay  in  the  Eastern  States. 
Now.  you  say  it  ultimately  rests  with  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior, 
but  you  should  bear  this  in  mind  that  this  bill  merely  provides  for 
an  authorization,  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  can  not  spend 
one  dollar  of  the  amount  authorized  to  be  appropriated  here  until 
the  following  steps  are  taken:  He  has  got  to  select  some  project, 
that  project  must  be  approved  by  the  Federal  land  bank  and  by  the 
governor  of  the  State,  and  then  he  must  run  the  gauntlet  of  the  Ap- 
propriations Committee,  and  after  that  the  matter  must  be  approved 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  547 

by  the  House  and  Senate.  The  Secretary  of  the  Interior  has  no- 
carte  blanche  in  this  matter. 

Mr.  WOOD.  We  know  from  very  recent  experience  the  disadvantage 
under  which  the  Appropriations  Committee  labors  in  contests  with. 
the  various  heads  of  the  executive  departments  with  reference  to  any 
character  of  these  projects.  We  ought  not  to  delude  ourselves  with 
the  idea  that,  if  this  thing  is  established  according  to  the  plan  sug- 
gested in  this  bill,  the  chief  or  head  of  this  department,  and  I  do  not 
care  who  it  is,  will  not  be  the  dominating  influence  in  the  carrying 
out  of  the  scheme. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  in  none  of  the  projects  in  the 
Reclamation  Service,  to  which  you  directed  some  slight  criticism, 
has  there  been  any  community  settlement  or  what  you  would  call  a 
community  settlement? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes;  that  is  true. 

Mr.  RAKER.  All  of  them  are  on  the  open,  individual,  separate  farm 
basis,  just  as  prevails  in  every  State  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  has  not  been  done,  and  there  have  not  been  any 
community  settlements.  Xow.  take  these  various  projects :  Are  there 
any  of  them  that,  to  your  mind  or  knowledge,  are  not  making  a, 
success  to-day? 

Mr.  WOOD.  I  know  of  one  or  two  that  I  have  been  connected  with 
that  did  not  make  a  success. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  am  talking  about  those  under  the  supervision  of  the 
Government.  Of  course,  I  know  there  have  been  many  individual 
schemes  whereby  somebody  has  started  out  to  make  a  fortune  at 
the  expense  of  poor  people,  and  those  projects  have  failed. 

Mr.  WOOD.  The  Government  has  never  undertaken  any  settlement 
or  community  scheme.  The  Government  proffers  a  chance  to  you. 
or  to  anybody  that  comes  along  to  take  up  a  homestead  claim,  but 
the  Government  has  never  undertaken  any  colonization  scheme. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then,  under  the  reclamation  law — and  as  you  say  this 
has  reclamation  in  it,  and  that  must  be  true,  and  also  the  drainage 
of  swamp  lands  and  the  improvement  of  cut-over  lands — there  has. 
been  no  community  settlement  about  them,  but  they  have  been  made 
a  success  or  a  success  now.  Now,  if  that  is  a  fact,  why  should  we 
say  that  this  scheme  as  presented  to  the  committee  might  be  a 
failure,  when  everything  we  have  done  up  to  date  in  the  way  of 
reclamation  has  been  a  success? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Xow,  admit  your  premises,  and  admit  that  the 
Government  might  undertake  to  reclaim  the  overflowed  lands  ad- 
jacent to  the  Mississippi  River,  in  the  Mississippi  River  country,  and 
establish  them  so  they  will  be  perfectly  safe  against  overflow,  and 
then  you  take  and  apportion  that  land  among  the  soldiers  who  came 
back  from  the  war,  have  you  not  done  an  injustice  to  the  man  who* 
does  not  want  to  go  onto 'those  lands?  That  is,  if  that  is  the  only 
project  you  establish. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  suppose  you  have  five  times  as  many  soldiers  as 
you  can  provide  for  on  this  very  land :  if  you  can  provide  for  100.000 
of  those  soldiers  on  the  Mississippi  Valley  land  as  designated  by  you, 
would  it  not  be  a  good  thing? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Of  course,  it  would,  but  would  it  not  be  an  equally 
good  thing  to  provide  for  the  soldiers  in  the  cities  and  in  the  manu- 


548  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

facturing  centers,  who  are  entitled  to  as  much  help  as  these  boys 
.going  on  the  farm? 

Mr.  MAYS.  Do  you  not  see  the  benefit  of  relieving  the  congestion  in 
the  cities,  along  with  the  other  benefits  in  the  bill  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Absolutely;  that  feature  is  all  right,  but  you  can  not 
discriminate  entirely  against  the  cities,  and  you  can  not  discriminate 
entirely  against  the  soldier  boy  who  does  not  want  to  go  to  the  coun- 
try;  and  wherever -you  do  that  you  are  going  to  cause  bitterness  and 
liate,  whereas  by  some  scheme  properly  Avorked  out  that  would  give 
all  at  least  a  chance  to  participate,  you  have  removed  that  difficulty. 

Mr.  MAYS.  The  cities  have  been  increasing  in  population  much  fas- 
ter than  the  country. 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Is  it  not  necessary  to  relieve  that  tendency  at  least  to 
some  extent? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes ;  but  do  not  relieve  it  through  this  kind  of  a  scheme. 

Mr.  MAYS.  What  would  be  your  scheme  which  would  relieve  that 
situation  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  My  scheme  would  be  a  general  reclamation  scheme  that 
would  stand  on  its  own  bottom.  PO  not  make  the  boys  a  party  to 
this  scheme  because  when  you  do,  where  you  are  going  to  satisfy  1 
you  are  going  to  cause  dissatisfaction  to  100. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Would  you  be  in  favor  of  a  general  reclamation  scheme 
independent  of  the  relationship  of  the  soldiers  to  it  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  MAYS.  I  think  I  asked  you  practically  the  same  question  be- 
fore ;  but  would  you  object  to  giving  the  soldier  a  preference  right  in 
getting  a  home? 

Mr.  WOOD.  I  would  be  in  favor  of  that,  too. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Mr.  Wood,  it  has  been  stated  by  the  author  of  this 
bill  that  it  would  probably  not  afford  aid  to  more  than  1  per  cent  of 
the  soldiers.  Assuming  that  to  be  true,  what  would  be  the  effect 
of  that  on  the  mental  attitude  of  the  99  per  cent  who  are  not  helped  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  It  would  make  the  99  per  cent  who  are  not  helped  feel 
Tery  much  aggrieved. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Judge,  do  you  not  realize  that  building  up  waste 
places,  starting  new  communities,  and  opening  up  great  tracts  of 
land  to  cultivation  will  make  a  market  for  the  things  these  other 
soldiers  living  in  the  cities  will  manufacture,  and  in  that  way  will  be 
of  benefit  to  them? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes;  but  that  is  so  very  indirect  that  you  would  have 
a  good  deal  of  trouble  convincing  the  soldier  who  did  not  get  any 
-direct  help  that  he  was  being  helped  in  that  way  at  all. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Is  it  not  true  that  1,000  farmers  will  support  a  city  of 
about  10,000  people? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes.  If  you  had  one  scheme  to  develop  30,000  acres 
of  undeveloped  land  by  the  soldiers,  and  another  scheme  to  develop 
a  town  which  would  satisfy  the  wants  of  those  men  living  in  the 
•country  and  help  that  many  more  men 

Mr.  SMITH  (interposing).  I  want  to  say  that  on  yesterday  T  was 
over  in  New  York  welcoming  home  from  France  about  600  Idaho 
boys.  I  talked  with  them  about  this  proposition,  and  I  find  that 
the  professional  men  and  the  mechanics  were  just  ;is  enthusiastic 
.about  it  as  were  the  farmer  boys,  because  they  realize  that  there 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  549 

would  be  employment  for  them  in  connection  with  building  up  set- 
tlements, following  their  trades  and  engaging  in  mercantile  activ- 
ities. I  think  you  are  mistaken  when  you  proceed  on  the  theory 
that  the  soldiers  who  are  not  farmers  are  going  to  be  dissatisfied 
with  this  sort  of  legislation. 

Mr.  WOOD.  This  may  have  the  effect  of  changing  human  nature, 
but  I  do  not  believe  it  will. 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  has  been  demonstrated  out  in  the  western  country 
that  when  you  establish  one  of  these  projects,  only  a  comparatively 
small  proportion  of  people  go  on  the  land  and  the  others  go  into 
the  community  and  start  stores  and  manufacturing  interests  of 
different  kinds,  and  then  we  send  great  sums  of  money  east  to  buy 
the  things  which  vou  manufacture  in  Indiana  and  other  States  in 
Middle  West  and  East. 

Mr.  WOOD.  That  is  a  natural  saturation  by  individual  efforts. 
That  is  not  a  project  of  governmental  aid. 

Mr.  SMITH.  But  in  order  to  undertake  these  great  projects  you 
must  have  the  Government  behind  them. 

Mr.  XICPIOLS.  Mr.  Smith,  do  you  think  there  are  any  great  number 
of  soldiers  who  have  not  had  farming  experience  who  will  take  ad- 
vantage of  this  aid? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  think  it  is  quite  true  that  a  good  many  of  them  will, 
because  they  have  become  accustomed  to  out-door  life  while  in  the 
Army  and  prefer  some  business  out  in  the  open. 

Mr.  XICHOLS.  I  do  not  think  so. 

Mr.  SMITH.  They  have  been  accustomed  to  out-door  life  for  the 
l^st  two  years,  and  a  great  many  of  them  will  want  to  get  into  agri- 
cultural pursuits. 

Mr.  MAYS.  As  I  understand  it,  one  of  your  chief  objections  to  this 
bill  is  the  fact  that  it  will  not  appeal  to  the  soldiers  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes. 

Mr.  MAYS.  And  that  very  few  of  them  would  take  advantage  of  it  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes. 

Mr.  MAYS.  If  this  bill  were  to  provide  an  opportunity  for  all  that 
wished  to  take  advantage  of  it,  then  the  others  who  did  not  wish  to 
do  so.  would  riot  have  any  bitterness  in  their  hearts,  would  they  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes;  they  would. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Why? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Simply  because  some  scheme  was  not  offered  to  them. 
They  would  say  that  you  have  simply  picked  out  the  farming  indus- 
try of  this  country. 

Mr.  MAYS.  The  opportunity  is  offered  to  them  if  they  wish  to  take 
advantage  of  it. 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes;  but  they  are  not  farmers.  I  want  to  say  to  you 
that  the  gentleman  here  says  he  thinks  a  number  of  boys  who  are 
not  farmers  will  take  advantage  of  this  scheme.  I  think  the  per- 
centage would  be  very  small.  A  farmer  is  made  from  the  time  he  is 
3  years  of  age,  when  he  grows  up  on  a  farm,  to  17  years  of  age. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Mr.  Wood,  we  find  from  actual  experience  that  on  these 
reclamation  projects  which  have  been  provided  by  the  Government 
that  a  great  many  people  who  know  nothing  about  farming  have 
taken  advantage  of  the  opportunities  and  have  made  good  farmers. 
Mr.  Smith  will  bear  out  that  statement. 

Mr.  SMITH.  That  is  absolutely  so. 


550  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Is  that  the  general  rule  or  the  exception? 

Mr.  MAYS.  It  is  not  the  exception. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Wood,  are  you  familiar  with  the  attitude  of  other 
governments  with  regard  to  the  treatment  of  their  returning  soldiers  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  No;  I  am  not;  and  that  is  the  reason  I  thought  it 
would  be  a  good  suggestion  for  you  gentlemen  to  get  somebody  who 
is  to  tell  you  about  that.  Mr.  Herrick  could  give  you  some  very 
good  information  on  that  proposition. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Do  you  know,  from  the  history  of  this  country  or  any 
other  country  relative  to  prior  wars,  of  a  country  doing  anything 
for  its  soldiers  except  giving  them  a  pension  and  authorizing  or 
giving  them  grants  of  land? 

Mr.  WOOD.  I  have  understood  that  Germany  tried  some  coloniza- 
tion scheme  and  that  it  was  a  failure. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Outside  of  Germany,  are  you  familiar  with  what  this 
country  has  done  relative  to  giving  its  soldiers  tracts  of  land? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes,  sir.  I  am  not  familiar  with  anything  except  in  a 
general  way  with  what  our  country  did  and  what  I  have  heard  with 
reference  to  Germany. 

Mr.  RAKER.  This  country  has  never  attempted  to  do  anything  for 
its  soldiers  of  prior  wars  except  to  give  them  a  pension  and  authorize 
them  to  take  up  tracts  of  Government  lands  under  better  conditions 
than  someone  else. 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  If  that  is  true,  and  if  nc  other  means  can  be  devised, 
is  it  not  a  fact  that  where  the  land  is  located  and  where  the  Govern- 
ment has  it,  if  the  soldiers  think  it  is  right  and  if  everybody  has 
thought  that  it  is  right,  the  man  must  go  from  where  he  lives  to 
where  the  land  is  located. 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes;  if  you  admit  that  premise,  but  I  am  not  going  to 
admit  that.  I  am  not  going  to  admit  that  this  is  the  only  scheme 
that  can  be  devised. 

Mr.  RAKER.  None  other  has  been  thought  of  by  the  mind  of  man 
up  to  the  present  time  except  to  give  tracts  of  land  to  returning  sol- 
diers. 

Mr.  WOOD.  Well,  but  we  have  not  reached  our  limitations,  I  hop-,', 
in  ingenuity,  and  I  believe  this  committee,  if  it  will  simply  get  down 
to  brass  tacks,  will  work  out  some  suitable  scheme. 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  order  to  carry  out  a  similar  plan  to  what  has  been 
done  following  prion  wars,  namely,  the  Revolutionary  War,  the  War 
of  1812,  the  War  of  1861-1865,  and  the  Spanish-American  War  in 
regard  to  the  ronation  of  land,  we  have  to  let  the  men  go  to  where 
the  land  is  istuated :  is  not  that  true  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  That  is  true;  but  that  can  not  be  any  criterion  at  all 
for  this  situation,  because  the  whole  topography  of  the  country  has 
been  changed.  We  have  changed  from  a  desert,  practically,  into  a 
thickly  populated  country.  The  economic  conditions  have  changed, 
the  social  conditions  have  changed,  and  all  those  things  have  got  to 
be  taken  into  consideration,  and  what  you  did  to  satisfy  the  soldiers 
of  prior  wars  can  not  be  taken  for  comparison  now  at  all. 

Mr.  RAKER.  If  that  law  works  all  right,  and  if  the  people  were  sat- 
isfied with  it,  and  if  they  realized  that  when  they  took  a  tract  of 
Government  land  they  had  to  leave,  their  homos  and  go  to  whero 
the  land  was,  and  nobody  has  claimed  that  if  to-day  we  have  10,- 


HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS.  551 

000,000  acres  of  Government  land  that  can  be  put  under  cultivation 
and  good  homes  made  for  these  soldiers  by  giving  them  a  proper 
grant  and  proper  assistance,  that  we  ought  not  to  do  it  to-day. 

Mr.  WOOD.  You  ought  to  do  just  as  much  as  you  can  to  help  the 
farm  boys  who  were  soldiers,  and  you  ought  to  do  just  as  much  as 
you  can  to  help  the  boys  who  were  not  farm  boys  but  were  soldiers 
also. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Wood,  will  you  give  us  your  concrete  plan  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  I  have  not  worked  it  out.  The  suggestion  I  made  as 
a  basis  upon  which  a  plan  might  be  worked  out  so  that  it  would  be 
equitable  at  least,  would  be  to  take  and  first  agree  upon  the  amount 
of  money  that  you  are  going  to  give  to  the  soldiers,  then  apportion 
it  among-  the  several  States,  and  let  them  provide  their  own  schemes 
for  its  application,  or  adopt  the  scheme  suggested  by  Mr.  Ferris, 
and  divide  the  country  into  areas  and  apportion  the  money  to  one 
scheme  which  is  actually  possible  for  the  purpose  of  developing  the 
lands  in  that  area,  and  apportion  the  money  to  another  that  is  not 
agricultural;  in  other  words,  allow  them  to  make  a  choice  and  have 
an  alternative,  but  give  every  fellow  a  chance  to  be  helped.  That  is 
what  I  am  after. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Did  you  mean  to  use  the  word  "  give  "  in  speaking  of 
the  amount  you  would  give  the  soldier? 

Mr.  WOOD.  What  I  meant  to  say  was,  first  agree  on  the  amount  of 
money  that  the  Government  is  going  to  expend  for  the  purpose  of 
helping  the  soldiers. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Advance  to  him,  you  mean. 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes;  and  apportion  that  among  the  several  States.  I 
am  not  in  favor  of  giving  the  soldier  anything  with  the  idea  that 
you  are  giving  him  something  that  he  is  not  going  to  return. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  are  not  in  favor  of  a  bounty  proposition,  are 
you? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Wood,  you  spoke  of  the  failures  in  Germany. 
This  bill  is  the  result  of  an  investigation  made  by  Mr.  Elwood  Mead 
and  other  commissioners  in  Germany,  Sweden,  Denmark,  and  all 
countries  providing  any  kind  of  a  project.  We  had  the  fruit  of  his 
ripe  experience  and  knowledge  of  that  investigation  covering  nearly 
two  years,  and  his  ideas  are  incorporated  in  this  bill.  You  have 
quoted  from  Mr.  Merrick.  Have  you  read  his  articles  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes ;  I  have  read  Mr.  Herrick's  articles  but  it  has  been 
some  time  ago. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  think  he  has  been  fair  in  his  explanation 
of  this  plan  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Oh,  I  have  not  read  his  articles  with  a  view  to  being 
critical  on  this  subject. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Was  your  viewpoint  colored  by  the  propaganda 
he  is  putting  out? 

Mr.  WOOD.  No ;  I  have  not  seen  anything  he  has  written  for  a  long, 
long  time.  This  business  has  been  a  fad  of  Mr.  Herrick's  for 
years. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Every  member  of  the  House  has  received  a  letter 
from  Mr.  Merrick  and  I  have  it  here. 

Mr.  WOOD.  I  refer  to  Mr.  Herrick. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Who  is  that  gentleman,  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Merrick. 


552  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Who  is  he — the  editor  of  some  farm  journal? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  it  is  the  most  misleading  stuff  I  have  seen 
It  absolutely  misstates  the  purpose  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Who  is  he? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Merrick. 

Mr.  WOOD.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  Merrick.  I  am  talking 
about  Mr.  Herrick.  I  never  heard  anything  of  that  other  fellow. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  are  talking  about  Gov.  Herrick. 

Mr.  WOOD.  I  am  talking  about  Myron  T.  Herrick,  who  at  one  time 
was  governor  of  Ohio.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  that  other 
man. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to 
the  stuff  this  editor,  Mr.  Merrick,  is  sending  out. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  was  sure  that  Mr.  Wood  referred  to  the  ex-governor 
of  Ohio. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  wanted  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to 
this  stuff.  Here  are  newspaper  clippings  that  people  are  asked  to 
cut  out  and  send  to  Congressmen,  entitled,  "  Vigorous  protest  to  Con- 
gress against  the  Lane  bill  to  spend  $500,000,000  reclaiming  distant 
swamps  and  deserts  for  soldiers,"  and  so  on.  It  is  dubbed  and  stigma- 
tized as  a  swamp  plan  and  an  arid-land  scheme,  and  nothing  else.  I 
supposed  that  was  the  man  you  were  referring  to. 

Mr.  WOOD.  No;  and  I  do  not  want  to  be  understood  as  confusing 
that  gentleman  witli  Mr.  Herrick,  because  Mr.  Herrick  is  a  very 
high-class  gentleman. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  gentleman  you  refer  to  was  formerly  gover- 
nor of  Ohio? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Who  is  this  fellow  that  gets  this  literature  up? 
Where  is  his  paper  published? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  says  "  Farm  and  Home  Paper,"  and  it  is  pub- 
lished at  Springfield,  M'ass.,  and  Chicago,  111. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  May  I  ask  Mr.  Wood  a  question?  Do  you  think  that 
under  this  bill  if  50  per  cent  of  the  soldiers  who  participated  in  this 
war  sought  to  avail  themselves  of  the  opportunity,  this  bill  would 
take  care  of  that  many  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  I  do  not  think  so.  I  do  not  think  it  would  take  care 
of  10  per  cent  of  them. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Is  not  this  bill  necessarily  limited? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes;  I  think  it  is  limited. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Mr.  Wood,  I  understand  your  opposition  to  the  bill 
is  largely  because  it  does  not  take  care  of  all  the  soldiers,  especially 
those  in  Indiana,  for  instance.  Now,  you  have  not  any  project,  evi- 
dently, that  could  be  made  available  in  Indiana  under  this  bill.  Do 
you  not  think  it  would  be  proper  and  wise  legislation  to  enact  this 
bill  so  as  to  start  these  reclamation  projects  in  States  where  they 
would  be  feasible? 

Mr.  WOOD.  I  think  it  would  be  a  splendid  idea  to  start  your  recla- 
mation projects  as  reclamation  projects. 

Mr.  SMITH.  And  give  the  soldiers  the  preference  right? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  SMITH.  That  is  all  there  is  to  the  bill,  Mr.  Wood. 

Mr.  WOOD.  Now,  that  is  not  all  there  is  to  the  bill,  because  you  arc 
offering  nothing  to  any  one  else. 


HOMEo  FOR  SOLDIERS.  553 

Mr.  SMITH.  But  when  you  build  up  a  community  are  not  other  peo- 
ple going'  to  get  a  benefit  from  that? 

Mr.  WOOD.  But  you  are  saying  to  everybody  who  wants  to  take 
.advantage  of  this  situation,  "  You  must  go  on  a  farm,"  and  that  is 
an  unfair  proposition. 

Mr.  SMITH.  We  can  pass  another  bill  to  benefit  soldiers  in  other 
activities  in  life. 

Mr.  WOOD.  I  think  you  had  better  put  it  altogether  and  not  start 
something  that  is  going  to  array  one  class  of  these  soldiers  against 
the  other.  That  is  one  thing  you  should  avoid. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Mr.  Wood,  I  want  to  ask  you  a  question  or  two  sug- 
gested by  a  question  that  was  raised  by  Mr.  Ferris.  You  made  the 
statement  here  a  moment  ago  that  the  training  of  a  farmer  began 
from  the  time  he  was  a  boy  3  years  old  until  he  was  17,  and  I  heartily 
approve  that  statement. 

Now,  there  will  be  thousands  and  hundreds  of  thousands  of  those 
soldiers  who  are  sons  of  farmers  and  who,  as  you  have  suggested,  will 
not  care  to  go  to  any  projects,  or  who  will  not  care  to  leave  their 
homes,  but  who  are  riot  able  to  engage  in  farming  because  they  have 
not  the  capital,  but  under  the  proposition  suggested  by  Mr.  Ferris, 
under  an  agency  established  by  the  Secretary,  it  would  be  possible 
to  lend  those  men  certain  sums  and  then  allow  them  to  select  segre- 
gated tracts.  They  will  be  absolutely  familiar  with  the  conditions; 
they  would  have  had  training  all  of  their  lifetime,  from  childhood 
up,  on  the  farm,  which  would  be  a  good  guarantee  of  success.  Don't 
you  believe  that  from  the  standpoint  of  solvency,  the  Government 
would  be  as  fully  safeguarded  in  an  investment  of  that  kind  as  it 
would  be  under  any  reclamation  scheme  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes ;  I  think  that  is  true.  Here  is  what  you  will  find 
true  of  every  settlement:  I  remember  when  I  was  a  little  boy  there 
used  to  be  great  wagon  trains  going  from  our  country  to  Kansas 
and  Nebraska.  There  was  always  a  very  considerable  percentage  of 
those  who  left  who  became  dissatisfied  and  came  back,  just  as  there 
would  be  a  very  considerable  percentage  of  those  that  would  go  on 
these  projects  that  you  are  proposing  here,  but  they  would  not  be- 
come dissatisfied  if  they  had  the  money  with  which  to  establish 
themselves  in  their  own  communities. 

Mr.  WHITE.  That  question  is  well  answered,  and  I  thank  you.  I 
want  to  ask  you  another  question:  Is  it  not  your  calm  judgment 
that  the  value  of  the  lands  in  the  United  States,  including  stump 
lands,  swamp  lands,  etc. — although  I  do  not  know  that  this  will 
apply  so  well  to  lands  susceptible  to  irrigation — but  is  it  not  true 
that  "the  value  of  lands  available  for  agriculture,  but  not  used  in 
all  of  the  great  farming  sections  of  the  United  States  has  been 
pretty  accurately  gauged  by  the  genius  of  investment?  Has  not 
the  genius  of  investment  pretty  accurately  gauged  the  value  of  those 
lands  at  the  present  time  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  That  would  be  my  opinion,  and  I  think  that  is  true. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Don't  you  think  that  the  investment  or  segregated 
investment — and,  of  course,  this  committee  knows  that  I  am  in 
favor  of  segregated  investments — I  do  not  know  how  they  found 
it  out,  but  they  know  it — don't  you  believe  that  many  thousands 
and  tens  of  thousands  of  soldiers,  who,  on  account  of  early  associa- 
tions or  home  associations,  and  on  account  of  the  fact  that  they 


554  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

would  have  the  advantage  of  the  counsel  of  their  parents  and  others 
who  are  directly  interested  in  them,  and  on  account  of  having  the 
confidence  of  the  business  men  and  bankers  who  know  their  quality, 
would,  from  the  standpoint  of  prospective  success,  have  a  better 
opportunity  to  succeed  by  remaining  in  their  own  communities 
rather  than  living  in  communities  with  which  they  are  not  familiar  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  That  is  my  judgment.  With  the  same  conditions, 
existing  in  both  places,  the  man  at  home  among  those  who  know 
him,  and  among  those  with  whom  his  character  itself  would  be  an 
asset,  would  have  a  considerable  advantage,  over  the  man  or  boy  who 
left  home  and  established  himself  among  strangers  where  his  charac- 
ter would  not  be  an  asset  to  him.  In  other  words,  with  the  same  op- 
portunities otherwise,  the  boy  who  remained  in  his  own  community 
would  be  likely  to  get  along  a  great  deal  better  than  one  who  went 
into  a  strange  country. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Do  you  know,  Mr.  Wood,  that  in  all  the  count it\s  in 
agricultural  sections  of  the  United  States  there  are  farm  agents? 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes. 

Mr.  WHITE.  In  my  State  that  is  the  rule.  Those  farm  agents  are 
employed  for  the  reason  that  they  are  thoroughly  familiar  with  the 
methods  of  agriculture,  the  qualities  of  soil,  and  everything  of  the 
kind,  in  the  county  where  they  are  giving  service.  Now,  don't  you 
believe  that  those  men  are  fully  as  competent,  or  more  competent,  or 
are  likely  to  be  more  competent,  to  advise  those  young  farmers  thau 
men  who  are  doubtless  supervising  what  is,  in  a  large  sense,  a  prob- 
lematical proposition 

Mr.  WOOD.  That  is  manifestly  true.  To  give  a  concrete  example  of 
that,  we  have  some  lands  in  our  State  tKat  appear  to  be  the  most 
fertile  lands  in  the  world.  At  first  blush  you  would  think  that  they 
were,  but  when  you  begin  to  farm  them,  they  prove  to  be  a  fraud  and 
delusion.  A  lot  of  land  frauds  have  been  committeed  in  our  section- 
in  the  sale  of  such  lands.  Land  agents  have  taken  men  from  dif- 
ferent sections  of  the  country  and  sold  them  these  lands  upon  the 
strength  of  their  appearance. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Did  I  understand  you  to  say  in  answer  to  a  question 
by  Mr.  White  that  you  are  in  favor  of  buying  segregated  sections  of 
land  at  the  present  market  value  and  then  lend  Government  money 
to  the  extent  of  100  per  cent  of  the  value  of  that  land  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  No. 

Mr.  WHITE.  No ;  I  did  not  say  that. 

Mr.  SMITH.  What  percentage  of  the  value  would  you  propose  to- 
loan? 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  am  not  making  any  proposition,  but  I  will  make 
this  announcement;  that  I  will  prepare  an  amendment  to  this  bill 
at  the  proper  time,  and  the  committee  can  consider  it. 

Mr.  SMITH.  In  two  or  three  years  land  values  might  go  down  25 
per  cent,  and,  if  so,  where  would  the  Government's  security  be? 

Mr.  WOOD.  I  was  out  in  Indiana  during  the  vacation,  and  the  land 
people  told  me  that  they  were  selling  land  at  $300  per  acre  in  several 
counties,  but  I  tell  you  that  the  men  who  bought  the  land  were 
getting  the  best  of  it,  because  they  were  paying  ~>0  per  cent  less  than 
it  was  worth,  as  compared  with  its  value  before  the  war  commenced. 

Mr.  WHITE.  You  seem  to  be  familiar  with  land  prices,  and  I  want 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  555 

to  ask  you  whether  there  are  any  more  cautious  investors  anywhere 
than  the  land  people  are  ? 

Mr.  WOOD.  We  have  some  experts  at  that  business. 

Mr.  WHITE.  They  number  by  the  million. 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Not  only  those  who  are  land  agents,  but  the  farmers 
themselves  understand  the  business.  They  have  given  the  matter  of 
land  values  a  lifetime  study. 

Mr.  WOOD.  Yes;  I  contend  that  farming  is  the  greatest  science  in 
the  world,  with  the  least  known  about  it. 

STATEMENT  OF  ME.  R.  E.  SHEPHERD,  OF  JEROME,  IDAHO. 

Mr.  SHEPHERD.  Gentlemen,  I  am  not  going  to  occupy  very  much 
of  your  time  at  this  hour.  I  came  here  more  to  listen  to  your 
deliberations  than  to  have  anything  to  offer,  but  one  thing  was 
brought  out  this  morning  that  I  can  say  something  about  which  may 
be  of  interest  to  you.  The  question  of  the  agency  to  employ  in  giving 
effect  to  this  law.  You  have  been  questioning  Mr.  Davis  as  to 
whether  or  not  the  Reclamation  Service  has  rendered  a  good  stew- 
ardship in  the  work  heretofore  entrusted  to  it  in  the  matter  of 
reclamation  of  arid  lands  in  the  West.  I  come  from  the  same  dis- 
trict as  Mr.  Smith — the  Twin  Falls  territory.  Fifteen  years  ago 
that  was  nothing  but  sagebrush  desert;  there  was  hardly  a  single 
white  person  living  there.  All  the  work  that  has  been  done  in  that 
territory  has  been  accomplished  since  that  time.  Large  dams  have 
been  built  and  hundreds  of  miles  of  canals  and  ditches  have  been 
constructed.  Much  of  this  has  been  the  work  of  the  Reclamation 
Service.  In  this  short  time  more  than  7,500  farms  have  been  de- 
veloped in  the  Twin  Falls  country,  from  which  over  5,000,000  bushels 
of  wheat  was  sent  to  help  feed  the  Allies  and  the  East,  about 
30,000.000  pounds  of  beet  sugar  was  produced,  5,000,000  pounds  of 
wool  and  over  400,000  fat  sheep  and  lambs  were  shipped  to  the 
eastern  markets — wheat,  sugar,  wool,  and  meat;  all  most  essential 
product  for  eastern  trade.  In  exchange  for  all  this  we  were  liberal 
buyers  of  eastern  manufactured  products. 

In  response  to  the  call  of  the  Government  for  money  that  terri- 
tory has  returned  to  the  United  States  Treasury  in  subscriptions  to 
liberty  loans.  Red  Cross  activities,  and  all  the  various  kinds  of  war 
work  more  than  twice  the  money  the  Government  has  expended  out 
there.  It  seems  to  me  that  is  a  view  of  the  question  that  you  ought 
to  consider.  It  is  a  broad  question  of  public  policy  in  establishing 
the.  Reclamation  Service.  It  has  been  a  most  important  factor  in  this 
work  and  is  now  better  qualified  than  at  any  previous  period  to 
undertake  the  great  work  contemplated  by  this  bill.  While  I  do  not 
expect  all  these  returning  soldiers  to  go  to  Idaho,  glad  as  we  would 
be  to  have  them  come,  I  appreciate  the  fact  that  there  will  be  equal 
opportunities  elsewhere  and  the  working  out  of  the  measure  will 
open  the  door  of  opportunity  in  all  lines  of  work.  We  want  the 
boys  to  have  any  kind  of  job  they  can  handle.  The  railroad  will 
prosper,  the  eastern  manufacturer  will  have  new  markets,  and  all 
lines  of  trade  and  business  will  feel  the  good  growing  out  of  this 
proposition.  The  Reclamation  Service  has  proven  already  a  mighty 


556  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIEKS. 

good  thing  for  the  people  of  the  East  as  well  as  the  West  and  for 
the  people  everywhere,  particularly  during  the  recent  crisis  that  the 
Government  has  gone  through. 

Now,  I  well  remember  hearing  one  of  the  leading  men  of  the 
United  States  a  few  years  ago  say  that  the  one  great  indispensable 
industry  of  the  United  States  which  was  not  systematized  and  was 
largely  left  haphazard  was  this  great  industry  of  agriculture;  that 
whether  a  man  farmed  his  land  in  the  proper  way  or  advantageously 
was  left  to  luck  and  to  the  farmer's  discretion.  One  of  the  great 
things  the  Reclamation  Service  has  done  is  to  form  an  agency 
through  which  the  farmers  can  get  in  touch  with  the  Agricultural 
Department  of  the  United  States.  I  think  there  is  more  intelligent 
farming  in  the  communities  where  the  Reclamation  Service  has  done 
its  work  than  in  other  sections  of  the  country.  I  want  to  say  to  you 
that  food  production  in  the  United  States  has  not  kept  pace  with 
our  growing  population  according  to  the  records  of  the  Department 
of  Agriculture.  You  know  how  short  we  are  in  dairy  animals  as 
well  as  in  meat  animals.  There  must  be  some  intelligent  leadership, 
and  I  can  see  in  this  measure  an  opportunity  for  the  Department  of 
Agriculture  to  work  out  some  of  its  ideas  and  bring  them  directly  to 
the  people.  I  remember  some  years  ago  when  the  question  of  pure 
seed  was  first  discussed  and  someone  asked  the  question  as  to  how 
much  it  would  mean  in  the  course  of  a  year  if  there  was  one  more 
kernel  on  each  ear  of  corn,  and  the  man  who  worked  it  out  said  it 
would  mean  over  $75,000  a  year  in  freight  alone  for  just  one  more 
kernel  of  corn  on  each  ear.  One  of  the  results  of  this  measure  will  be 
to  extend  the  work  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  all  over  the 
country,  through  the  agency  of  the  Reclamation  Service,  in  bringing 
out  good  practice  in  farming. 

I  believe  it  is  the  agency  that  you  can  trust  for  the  carrying  out  of 
this  measure  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  United  States.  Of  course, 
there  are  lots  of  soldier  boys  who  are  not  going  to  take  these  farms. 
It  is  not  to  be  expected;  but  a  large  number  will,  and  in  time  will 
make  a  market  for  the  product  of  the  boys  that  go  into  manufactur- 
ing. They  will  help  make  traffic  for  the  boys  that  go  into  railroad 
work,  and  so  on.  Keep  in  mind  that  there  is  no  more  land  than 
originally  created,  you  can  multiply  manufacturing  plants,  railroads, 
and  commercial  enterprises  indefinitely  with  increasing  population, 
but  not  so  with  land,  the  area  is  fixed.  We  must,  as  a  matter  of 
public  policy,  set  in  motion  the  agency  that  will  increase  agricul- 
tural production,  making  habitable  and  productive  the  wraste  lands 
of  our  country. 

Remember  the  value  of  home  builders  to  the  country;  remember 
the  value  of  the  man  who  owns  his  own  home  and  his  own  farm. 
They  are  generally  among  the  substantial  people  our  country  can 
depend  upon  in  times  of  distress. 

Now,  with  regard  to  the  40-year  provision,  it  is  only  the  man  who 
can  use  money  to  advantage  that  will  stay  in  debt  40  years.  There 
are  certain  people  who  have  a  horror  of  debt  and  will  pay  up  long 
before  the  40-year  term  expires.  The  proposed  terms  will  give  an 
opportunity  to  acquire  better  live  stock  and  better  buildings,  educate 
their  children,  and  so  on.  You  will  find  that  there  will  be  more  men 
paying  money  back  too  soon  than  keeping  it  to  the  end.  You  can 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  557 

well  afford  to  have  the  farmers  of  the  United  States  using  4  per  cent 
money.  It  will  be  of  great  advantage  to  the  East, 

Mr.  NICHOLAS.  What  are  you  connected  with? 

Mr.  SHEPHERD.  The  Twin  Falls  North  Side  Land  &  Water  Co. 
It  is  a  Carey  Act  company.  The  land  was  opened  to  settlement  some 
years  ago. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Under  this  bill  do  you  believe  that  the  soldier  should 
be  privileged  to  have  more  than  one  farm  ? 

Mr.  SHEPHERD.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  How  do  you  mean  that  the  soldier  who  owes  the 
Government  money  could  use  that  money  instead  of  paying  the 
Government  what  he  owes  ? 

Mr.  SHEPHERD.  Well,  50  per  cent  of  it  will  go  into  better  stock, 
better  horses,  better  cattle,  better  sheep,  better  hogs. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Did  you  hear  the  statement  of  Mr.  Davis? 

Mr.  SHEPHERD.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  About  the  reason  for  that  40  years  being  in  the  bill  ? 

Mr.  SHEPHERD.  I  do  not  think  it  will  take  any  man  of  ordinary 
ability  40  years  to  pay  out.  Any  man  who  was  good  enough  to  fight 
in  France  will  be  able  to  pay  out  in  less  than  40  years,  as  far  as  that 
goes,  but  he  will  have  the  advantage  of  40  years'  credit,  which  will 
be  better  than  a  pension. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  believe  that  a  man  who  would  take  40  years 
to  pay  out  would  be  considered  a  success,  in  your  opinion  ? 

Mr.  SHEPHERD.  Your  question  is  unfair,  'it  depends  on  what  he 
does  with  his  money. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  How7  do  you  mean  my  question  is  unfair? 

Mr.  SHEPHERD.  You  may  have  an  occasional  man  wTho  will  never 
pay  out,  but  I  want  to  say  that  under  the  provisions  of  this  bill  the 
average  farmer,  so  far  as  his  ability  to  pay  is  concerned,  will  be  able 
to  pay  off  in  much  less  than  10  years,  but  there  are  men  who  can 
advantageously  employ  that  money  because  of  the  low  rate  of 
interest. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  But  that  is  not  the  purpose  of  the  bill  at  all.  Mr. 
Davis  said  that  was  in  the  bill  for  the  purpose  of  extending  that 
credit  to  a  man  who  has  to  have  40  years  to  pay  it.  Now,  do  you 
believe,  as  Mr.  Davis  does,  that  a  man  who  would  take  40  years  to 
pay  out  would  be  considered  a  success  in  farming? 

Mr.  SHEPHERD.  I  know  Mr.  Davis  well  enough  to  believe  he  would 
like  to  qualify  that  statement.  I  do  not  think  he  meant  it  that  way. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  But  I  am  asking  you. 

Mr.  SHEPHERD.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not. 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  is  not  assumed  that  because  the  term  is  fixed  at  40 
years  that  the  entryman  will  take  that  length  of  time.  He  may  want 
to  build  a  new  house  and  barn  or  send  his  children  to  college,  and 
he  might  like  to  take  advantage  of  the  long  term  and  utilize  his 
profits  for  these  purposes  instead  of  applying  it  to  the  loan. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Mr.  Davis  said  he  could  conceive  of  a  case  where  a 
man  could  not  pay  it  in  40  years  because  of  things  that  would  occur 
in  the  running  of  the  farm  during  the  40  years. 

Mr.  SHEPHERD.  Oh,  of  course,  in  case  a  man  broke  his  leg,  or  his 
house  burned  down,  or  his  wife  went  crazy,  cases  of  hard  luck,  but 
they  will  be  a  minor  exception.  I  assume  the  purpose  is  to  grant 


558  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

liberal  credit  to  these  boys,  which  will  be  of  great  advantage  in  many 
ways.    Thank  you,  gentlemen. 

(Thereupon,  at  12  o'clock  noon,  the  committee  adjourned  until 
to-morrow,  Wednesday,  June  18,  1919,  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.) 


COMMITTEE  ON  PUBLIC  LANDS, 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Wednesday,  June  18,  1919. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Nicholas  J.  Sinnott 
(chairman)  presiding. 

STATEMENT  OF  MRS.  HAVILAND  H.  LTJND,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C., 
SECRETARY  OF  THE  NATIONAL  FORWARD-TO-THE-LAND 
LEAGUE. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mrs.  Lund,  please  state  to  the  committee  your  full 
name  and  residence,  and  whom  you  represent. 

Mrs.  LUND.  Mrs.  Haviland  H.  Lund,  New  York,  and  I  am  secre- 
tary of  the  Forward-to-the-Land  League.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  going 
to  state  first,  because  I  am  a  Avoman  and  they  are  not  usually  supposed 
to  have  very  definite  ideas  about  matters  of  finance  and  economics,  that 
the  plans  for  the  work  in  land  settlement  and  colonization  have  been 
investigated  and  indorsed  by  bankers,  economists,  land  dealers,  and 
railroad  colonization  men. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mrs.  Lund,  I  do  not  like  to  interrupt  you,  but  so 
we  may  get  it  in  the  record,  will  you  state  something  about  this  league 
of  which  you  are  the  secretary,  its  organization  and  membership? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes.  Perhaps  this  statement  which  I  have  written 
here  will  give  that.  Shall  I  read  it? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Just  as  you  please.  If  you  can  state  it  briefly,  you 
may  do  so. 

(The  statement  referred  to  is  as  follows:) 

NATIONAL    FOBWARD-TO-THE-LAND    LEAGUE. 

The  Forward-to-the-Land  League  is  a  nonprofit-making  but  self-supporting  or- 
ganization to  make  unused  land  productive  and  profitable  to  the  individuals  who 
cultivate  it,  and  who  become  owners  of  the  land  through  their  own  efforts. 

It  will  establish  on  land,  carefully  selected  with  regard  to  its  particular 
capacities  and  its  nearness  to  markets,  carefully  selected  colonies  which  will  be 
cooperative  but  not  communistic.  It  will  give  the  colonists  the  benefit  of  the 
best  scientific  advice  and  the  best  business  intelligence.  The  colony  will  be  con- 
ducted so  that  the  individual  members  shall  be  able  to  pay  for  their  homes 
and  the  land  under  expert  advice  and  direction,  and  the  colony  is  established  on 
a  sound,  permanent  basis. 

The  colony  idea  is  almost  as  old  as  civilization.  Some  have  succeeded.  Most 
of  them  have  failed.  The  reasons  for  the  failures  are  logical.  On  the  com- 
mercial are  these : 

WHY    SOME    FARM     COLONIES    HAVE    FAILED. 

The  initial  high  cost  of  the  land,  including  exorbitant  selling  cost,  which 
ranges  from  25  to  45  per  cent. 

The  exploitation  of  colonists  to  make  money  for  the  land  owner. 

The  character  of  the  land  itself  and  market  inaccessibility. 

Leaving  the  members  of  the  young  colony  to  work  out  their  own  salvation 
in  fighting  against  obstacles  they  can  not  overcome. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  559 

The  chief  reasons  for  the  failure  of  philanthropic  land  colonization  have  been  : 

Lack  of  good  business  judgment  and  insufficient  capital. 

Unwise  selection  of  colonists. 

An  impractical  plan  of  development. 

Lack  of  intelligent  cooperation. 

The  impossibility  of  fitting  human  beings  into  a  mold,  of  compelling  them  to 
adjust  to  formulas,  restrictions,  laws,  rules  they  do  not  like  and  will  not  endure. 

Lack  of  participation,  and,  therefore,  responsibility,  on  the  part  of  the 
colonists. 

It  is  much  easier  to  get  human  beings  back  on  the  land  than  it  is  to  keep 
them  there. 

THE  HUMAN    NEEDS   OF   COLONISTS. 

A  plan  that  can  make  the  mere  business  of  agriculture  profitable  but  which 
fails  to  consider  all  human  needs  of  the  colonists  and  to  meet  these  needs  can 
not  succeed. 

Therefore  it  is  obvious  that  the  civic  center  must  receive  as  much  considera- 
tion as  the  industrial  and  commercial  problems. 

The  Forward-to^the-Land  League  is  unique  in  that  only  the  fundamental 
principles,  or,  more  accurately,  the  clearly  defined  objectives,  of  the  league  are 
fixed. 

The  organization  is  sufficiently  elastic  to  make  use  of  all  methods  developed 
by  experience  and  experiment. 

The  league  will  adapt  its  plans  to  human  beings,  instead  of  adopting  a  pat- 
tern and  attempting  to  make  human  beings  fit  into  a  rigid  mold. 

Broadly  speaking,  the  function  of  the  Forward-to-the-Land  League  is  educa- 
tional, to  make  known  the  practical  work,  to  locate  the  land,  and  to  secure  the 
colonists. 

MAINTAINING  THE  STANDARDS  OF  THE  LEAGUE. 

The  business  management  of  a  colony  will  be  under  the  direction  of  a  com- 
petent and  responsible  organization ;  but  in  every  instance  the  league  will  have 
supervisory  direction  to  make  sure  the  standards  of  the  colony  are  maintained, 
not  only  with  regard  to  economic  administration,  but  education  and  the  social 
needs  of  the  colony. 

In  every  instance  it  is  desired  to  have  the  community  in  which  the  colony  is 
established,  and  which  must  benefit  enormously  from  it,  to  subscribe  to  the 
stock  and  bonds  of  the  colony,  so  that  it  will  have  a  vital  interest  in  its  suc- 
cess, particularly  with  regard  to  providing  the  best  possible  transportation 
and  communication. 

In  certain  counties  there  are  likely  to  develop  a  group  of  colonies  allied  by  a 
common  interest. 

Investigation  checked  by  experience  establish  that  from  the  beginning  a 
colony  must  have  under  cultivation  at  least  50  farms  as  a  minimum — 100  is 
better — with  the  kind  of  soil  required  for  the  type  of  agriculture  contemplated. 

THE   MINIMUM   FOB   EACH  FARM. 

There  should  be  additional  land  included  in  the  colony  holding  to  take  care 
of  future  growth  in  the  number  of  colonists. 

The  minimum  requirements  for  each  farm  are: 

Five  acres  of  cleared  land  immediately  available  for  tiling. 

A  house  of  four  rooms. 

A  barn. 

One  horse  or  mule. 

One  cow  or  goat. 

Twelve  chickens. 

^wo  pi  ITS. 

Agricultural  implements. 

Wells,  fences,  and  roads,  as  well  as  modern  sanitary  provisions. 

A  community  center  with  school,  church,  town  hall,  library,  store,  blacksmith 
shop,  etc. 

Agricultural  instructor  and  market  expert. 

Each  colonist  should  have  a  certain  sum  of  money — from  $100  to  $600 — as 
an  evidence  of  responsibility  and  good  faith,  but  this  is  elastic.  Character 
and  capacity  will  be  considered  more  important  than  capital. 

133319—19 36 


560  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

LONG-TERM   PAYMENTS   PROVIDED. 

Payments  for  the  land  and  improvements  will  extend  over  a  period  of  20 
years,  with  optional  cash  payments  at  any  interest  amortization  date. 

An  officer  of  the  league  will  establish  the  colony  on  the  land  and  will  remain, 
until  its  machinery  is  working  smoothly. 

While  the  activities  of  the  forward-to-tlie-land  league  are  defined  as  securing 
the  land  and  the  colonists,  this  covers  a  broad  field  of  activity. 

It  includes  nation-wide  publicity,  persistent,  cumulative  campaigns  of  edu- 
cation, with  distinct  offices  in  important  centers,  bureaus  of  information,  and 
a  national  clearing  house  for  cooperative  development,  and  for  the  vast  stores 
of  agricultural  information  now  held  in  Federal  and  State  cold  storage. 

It  will  disseminate  all  available  information  far  and  wide.  It  will  cooper- 
ate with  the  extension  department  of  the  State  agricultural  colleges. 

THE    BROAD    PLAN    OF    EDUCATION. 

In  connection  with  the  land  information  bureau  there  will  t>e  free  classes  in 
agriculture  and  home  economics. 

A  permanent  land  exhibit,  supported  cooperatively  by  the  different  States, 
will  be  maintained.  This  will  logically  develop  into  a  national  agricultural 
museum  and  become  one  of  the  most  important  institutions  in  the  United  States. 

Because  the  league  is  an  educational  nonprofit-making  institution,  all  avenues 
of  publicity  are  open  to  it ;  newspapers,  periodicals,  moving-picture  companies, 
the  international  Young  Men's  Christian  Association,  and  the  Chautauqua  cir- 
cuits will  give  aid.  The  United  States  Commissioner  of  Education  and  cham- 
bers ol  commerce  are  ready  to  cooperate. 

The  educational  publicity,  which  will  take  advantage  of  every  opportunity, 
must  make  the  league  and  its  work  known  from  one  end  of  the  country  to  the 
other.  It  will  attract  prospective  colonists  in  larger  numbers  than  we  can 

CAREFUL   SELECTION    OF   COLONISTS. 

This  makes  possible  a  wise  selection  and  grouping  of  individuals  from  the 
different  colonies. 

Customs,  habits,  what  the  scientists  call  the  "  mores  "  of  racial  groups,  will 
be  considered  as  carefully  as  their  character  and  quality  and  the  kind  of  agri- 
culture they  prefer. 

The  individuals  for  a  particular  colony  will  be  chosen  with  care.  Each  will 
have  made  clear  to  him  the  privileges  and  obligations  of  citizenship  in  the  com- 
munity and  in  the  Nation. 

Here  is  a  practical,  direct,  effective  way  of  combating  the  destructive  radi- 
calism of  which  Bolshevism  is  the  symbol.  As  against  the  promises  of  the 
agitator,  the  forward-to-the-land  league  gives  actualities — visible  property ;  a 
home  and  land,  which  makes  him  independent  and  a  chance  to  earn  both. 

Furthermore,  the  colonist  is  protected  while  he  is  paying  for  his  house  and 
farm  and  equipment.  No  one  stronger  than  he  can  take  it  from  him. 

PRACTICAL    WORK   FOR    AMERICANIZATION. 

It  is  the  most  practical  method  of  real  Americanization  yet  devised  not  only 
in  its  immediate  but  in  its  enduring  results.  It  gives  every  man  the  chance  to 
be  free  and  independent. 

OPPORTUNITIES    FOR   THE    SOLDIERS. 

Particularly  does  it  offer  opportunity  for  the  returned  soldiers,  and  they 
will  make  wonderful  colonists,  for  they  have  learned  the  advantages  and 
obligations  of  real  cooperation,  of  accepting  scientific  direction  and  good  loader- 
ship,  which,  in  the  case  of  the  foreigner  colonist,  and  often  the  American,  will 
have  to  be  taught. 

It  will  be  made  clear  that  each  colonist  must  participate  in  all  the  activi- 
ties, particularly  in  the  government  of  the  colony,  and  that  he  must  share  lluv 
responsibility  for  their  activities. 

Of  course,  all  business  questions,  such  as  the  methods  of  payments,  will  be 
made  perfectly  clear  in  advance.  In  fact,  the  individuals  will  be  organized  as 
a  self-governing  unit  before  they  move  onto  the  land,  which  will  be  selected 
and  improved  for  each  particular  group. 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  561 

COOPERATION  ALL  ALONG  THE  LINK 

Just  as  each  colony  is  cooperative,  so  will  the  different  colony  units  be  co- 
operative in  so  far  as  they  have  a  community  interest;  as,  for  instance,  in  the 
buying  <>f  machinery  and  supplies,  the  marketing  of  their  products,  the  direc- 
tion of  amusements,  the  system  of  education.  Every  proven  experiment  in  a 
particular  colony  or  outside  of  it  will  be  employed  for  the  benefit  of  all  the 
colonies,  to  make  them  more  progressive,  to  make  them  happier,  to  make  them 
eager  to  improve  that  which  is  already  good. 

The  50-colony  farm  is  merely  the  starting  point.  Provision  for  additional 
land  is  made  for  those  who  become  acquainted  with  the  colony  as  farm 
laborers  and  other  workers  whether  in  the  colony  or  outside  of  it,  to  own  their 
own  farms. 

Thus  the  league  will  oppose  in  the  most  effective  way  the  evil  farm  peonage 
system  which  is  the  inevitable  concomitant  when  capitalists  operate  large  areas 
under  scientific  management,  and  which  pay  big  profits  if  the  owners  are  suc- 
cessful in  mobilizing  the  labor.  Intelligent  cooperation  can  yield  even  larger 
returns  under  the  Forward-to-the-Land  League  direction. 

SCIENTIFIC  BUYING  OF  THE  LAND. 

As  to  securing  the  land  itself,  the  league  provides  wide  latitude. 

The  league,  through  a  subsidiary,  may  buy  the  land  outright,  issuing  bonds 
in  payment. 

A  local  group  may  organize  and  provide  the  land  because  of  the  manifold 
advantages  of  having  a  colony  near  a  population  center. 

Or  the  league  may  enter  into  a  contract  with  an  existing  land  company  which 
will  provide  for  a  general  supervision  which  will  insure  the  standards  of  the 
league  are  maintained. 

In  every  case  the  land  must  stand  the  most  rigid  tests  as  to  its  value,  its 
productiveness,  and  its  convenience  to  markets.  The  Forward-to-the-Land 
League  will  make  sure  the  land  is  purchased  at  its  actual  worth,  under  a 
scientific  system  of  appraisement. 

The  actual  capital  invested  in  a  colony  would  pay  interest  because  money  is 
as  worthy  of  its  day's  wages  as  surely  as  the  laborer  is  worthy  of  his  hire. 
Agricultural  bonds,  bearing  interest  at  5  or  5^  per  cent,  with  the  land  and  im- 
provements of  the  colonies  as  security,  would  have  a  fixed  value.  Moreover,, 
they  would  be  in  demand  in  the  communities  whose  land  values  ind  commercial 
prosperity  would  be  tremendously  increased  by  the  colony. 

PROTECTING  CAPITAL  AND  COLONIST. 

The  same  care,  foresight,  and  business  judgment  must  be  exercised  to  protect 
the  invested  capital  as  is  employed  to  protect  the  colonist. 

The  initial  value  of  the  land  increases  as  it  is  brought  under  cultivation. 
Each  colony's  original  assets  would  be  quadrupled  by  its  success.  The  savings 
alone,  through  scientific  agriculture  and  cooperative  effort,  would  more  than  pay 
interest  on  the  indebtedness,  while  expert  marketing  would  further  increase  the 
profits. 

Group  insurance  of  the  colonist  gives  further  protection  to  the  investors  as 
well  as  the  colonist. 

The  insurance,  as  well  as  the  amortized  credit  of  20  years  or  more,  also 
protects  the  colonist. 

Furthermore,  the  colonist  has  the  privilege  of  relinquishing  his  original  land 
and  taking  developed  land  to  the  amount  of  money  he  has  paid  in.  Evea 
should  he  wish  to  leave  the  colony,  the  colonist  is  secured  against  any  actual 
loss. 

Mrs.  LUXD.  Connected  with  the  league  are  E.  J.  Parker,  of  the 
Salvation  Army ;  Dr.  A.  E.  Eoberts,  of  the  Young  Men's  Christian 
Association;  Dr.  Thomas  N.  Carver,  of  Harvard,  who  is  the  author 
of  the  textbook  on  rural  economics  which  is  used  in  all  of  our 
agricultural  colleges — I  have  a  list  of  the  names  here,  but  like  all 
my  other  papers  it  has  become  lost  in  this  bag — Dr.  M.  T.  Scudder,  of 
the  National  Play  Ground  Organization ;  Dr.  Henry  R.  Segar,  poli- 


562  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

tical  economist,  of  Columbia  University;  Senators  W.  G.  Harding, 
John  W.  Weeks,  Wadsworth,  Calder;  Charles  Schwab,  Myron  T. 
Herrick — I  can  furnish  that  list  a  little  later,  gentlemen,  if  you  want 
it  for  the  record,  but  perhaps  that  is  enough.  I  endeavored  to  put 
on  our  board  a  member  of  every  important  church  and  welfare 
organization  in  order  to  give  confidence  to  the  people  that  this  was 
not  a  land-selling  scheme.  It  was  part  of  my  plan  to  establish  this 
confidence  of  the  people. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  do  you  mean  by  "I  endeavored  to  put  on 
our  board"?  I  did  not  understand  that  expression. 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  endeavored  to  put  on  the  board  of  the  Forward-to- 
the-Land  League  people  who  were  prominent  in  church  and  welfare 
organizations  and  economists  as  well  as  business  men  so  as  to  give 
confidence  to  the  general  public,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  made  up  the  board? 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  worked  out  all  of  the  plans  and  formed  the  organi- 
zation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  knoAV  Mr.  Walsh  of  Massachusetts? 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  may  say  that  when  I  was  in  Boston  Mayor  Fitzgerald 
called  a  special  meeting  for  me  in  Faneuil  Hall  and  presided  at  the 
meeting  and  he  and  Gov.  Walsh  were  familiar  with  my  plans  and 
expected  to  help  put  it  across  in  Massachusetts.  Mayor  Fitzgerald 
said  I  could  count  on  Mr.  Walsh.  That  was  some  time  ago. 

As  I  started  to  say,  I  had  important  men  in  both  the  Democratic 
and  Republican  Parties  spend  from  one  to  two  weeks'  time  investi- 
gating the  business  connected  with  this  work.  A  detailed  explana- 
tion of  them  would  perhaps  take  more  time  than  you  care  to  go  into 
this  morning,  but  that  you  may  know  I  have  given  a  great  deal  of 
stud}'  to  this  subject  I  mention  this  careful  investigation.  I  empha- 
size this  point  because  my  plans  have  been  called  impractical  and 
impossible  of  realization — especially  have  they  been  called  imprac- 
tical by  those  who  have  wished  to  and  sometimes  succeeded  in  financ- 
ing these  same  ideas  in  organizations  of  their  own  after  convincing 
others  that  I  ought  not  to  have  support.  Very  especially  this  has 
been  the  case  where  the  critic  wanted  it  to  seem  that  the  Government 
must  do  this  great  work. 

Moreover,  they  have  been  proved  practicable ;  that  is,  each  step  in 
the  plans  has  been  proved,  and  for  that  reason  you  may  feel  that 
my  criticism  of  the  Mondell  bill  is  entirely  a  friendly  criticism ;  that 
I  want  this  movement  for  soldiers  on  the  land  to  succeed.  I  intro- 
duced the  first  bill  in  the  Congress  for  putting  them  on  the  land 
immediately  after  war  was  declared.  Senator  Curtis  introduced 
a  bill  in  the  Senate  for  me.  I  also  wrant  to  say  that  I  am  a  western 
woman ;  that  I  believe  in  reclamation ;  that  I  hope  soon  to  live  again 
in  the  West  and  die  there  when  my  time  comes — 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  hope  you  will  live  there  but  hope  you  will  not 
die  there. 

Mrs.  LUND.  That  is  nice  of  you;  I  do  not  want  to  decamp  imme- 
diately. I  feel  we  have  gone  about  this  whole  matter  of  soldier 
settlement  wrong  end  to,  and  there  is  not  a  man  on  this  committee 
who  is  in  the  slightest  degree  responsible  for.  that.  I  want  to  put 
the  responsibility  for  our  delay  in  taking  hold  of  this  measure  at 
the  proper  time  and  in  the  proper  manner  exactly  where  it  belongs, 
and  I  also  want  to  be  understood  that  in  stating  who  is  responsible 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  563 

for  this  delay  I  do  it  with  a  full  appreciation  that  these  people 
might  very  well  have  thought  as  you  and  I  think  that  our  plans  are 
the  best  plans.  I  believe  that  everyone  should  have  his  hearing. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Just  a  moment,  Mrs.  Lund,  so  that  we  may  keep 
the  record  clear.  You  spoke  of  your  bill  introduced  by  Senator 
Curtis.  Is  that  Senate  2696,  introduced  by  Senator  Curtis,  by  re- 
quest, July  24,  1917? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes;  creating  a  board  of  administration,  and  after 
we  used  that  word  "  administration  "  it  was  decided  at  a  caucus 
of  five  or  six  Republican  Senators,  held  in  Senator  Weeks's  office, 
that  they  would  change  the  word  "  administration  "  in  committee 
and  make  it  a  commission  appointed  by  Congress  to  develop  a  prac- 
ticable standard  for  rural  colonies  and  to  establish  the  same  for 
dependent  families  of  soldiers  of  the  United  States  and  to  make  a 
national  colonization  survey.  We  felt  that  a  commission  to  study 
these  matters  should  be  established,  that  we  might  be  ready  for  the 
soldiers  when  they  returned.  Other  countries  appointed  a  commis- 
sion as  soon  as  war  began,  and  we  could  read  into  our  record  here 
with  great  advantage  to  ourselves  the  British  findings  from  their 
study,  because  they  put  experts  on  their  commission  of  many  shades 
of  opinion  and  studied  it  thoroughly  from  all  angles.  And  that  is 
what  we  wanted  to  bring  about  in  this  Curtis  bill.  We  planned  to 
have  this  vast  subject  studied. 

Mr.  WHITE.  What  is  the  number  of  that  bill? 

Mrs.  LUND.  S.  2696.  We  planned  after  the  study  of  this  subject 
in  all  of  its  ramifications  to  bring  out  through  the  hearings  on  the  bill 
all  the  salient  facts  so  the  public  would  be  informed  through  pub- 
licity. I  planned  to  call  experts  on  the  different  things  that  make 
up  this  great  big  problem  of  colonization  not  alone  for  the  informa- 
tion to  the  committee,  but  to  inform  the  people.  I  went  to  the  maga- 
zine editors  and  to  all  the  newspaper  syndicates  and  arranged  for 
them  to  carry  these  hearings.  The  subject  is  very  little  understood. 
We  stumble  so  over  words.  Many  do  not  know  what  the  word  "  so- 
cialism "  is  in  contradistinction  to  "  State  socialism,"  nor  what  "  com- 
munities "  means  in  contradistinction  to  "  communism  and  socialism 
and  cooperation."  There  are  many  words  that  bother  us.  and  it  was 
my  idea  to  have  people  of  national  consequence  whose  opinion  could 
not  be  gainsaid  in  their  own  special  field  define  these  things  in  no 
uncertain  terms,  so  we  might  all  know  about  them,  then  let  the  legis- 
lation grow  out  of  this  comprehension  and  have  the  legislation  pre- 
pared in  time  to  be  ready  Avhen  the  boys  get  home. 

I  have  had  a  very  peculiar  experience  with  the  State  socialists  in 
the  present  administration,  and  may  I  define  here  what  I  consider 
the  difference  between  State  socialism  and  socialism,  and  I  will  say 
my  authority  for  the  definitions  is  Karl  Marx.  Ferdinand  La- 
Salle  and  William  English  Walling,  all  socialists,  and  I  think  con- 
sidered authorities  on  socialism.  The  socialist  wants  all  of  the 
property  in  the  world  and  all  of  the  tools  and  equipment  owned 
evenlv,  divided  evenly,  and  managed  by  the  people  themselves.  The 
State  socialist — and  Bismarck  evolved  State  socialism,  and  the  first 
State  socialism  began  in  Germany — wants  the  Government  to  engage 
in  business,  especially  in  financing  business  enterprise.  Bismarck 
was  a  wily  old  gentleman  and  saw  that  the  cooperationists  were  get- 
ting away  from  him.  He  had  persecuted  them  for  twenty-odd  years 


564  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

and  they  continued  to  grow,  and  he  saw  that  the  really  democratic, 
cooperative  organization  throughout  Germany  threatened  their  mili- 
taristic regime,  so  he  then  started  to  finance  them.  He  could  not  kill 
them  out,  so  he  said,  "We  will  buy  them;  we  will  give  them  all  the 
money  they  want  from  the  public  treasury,"  and  that  is  where  our 
State  socialism  began.  For  many  years  we  have  admired  Germany, 
and  before  the  war  who  did  not  admire  Germany,  especially  all  the 
people  sympathetic  with  the  underdog  thought  "that  Germany  was 
most  efficient  and  had  worked  out  plans  that  had  done  away  with 
poverty,  and  we  were  all  copying  her.  . 

Col.  Roosevelt  was  the  Kaiser's  friend,  and  many  of  his  progressive 
ideas  were  admittedly  borrowed  from  Germany;  but  Col.  Roosevelt 
was  among  the  first  to  see  the  peril  when  the  real  nature  of  the 
State  control  showed  itself  during  the  war.  He  started  to  lead  his 
progressives  (who  sometimes  did  not  take  time  to  see  where  they 
were  progressing,  so  intent  were  they  upon  altering  things  they 
thought  wrong)  to  see  that  they  were  leaping  from  the  frying  pan 
into  the  fire  and  that  you  can  not  change  human  nature  through 
legislation. 

When  private  capital  gouged  and  cheated  we  thought  to  stop 
gouging  and  cheating  by  taking  the  business  away  from  them  and 
letting  the  Government  do  it  unmindful  of  the  fact  since  illustrated 
that  we  may  wake  up  to  find  the  same  men  running  the  Government 
bureau  who  were  running  the  private  enterprise  and  with  no  re- 
sponsibility or  capital  involved.  If  individuals  want  to  cheat  and 
waste,  they  will,  no  matter  what  the  form  of  government  or  of 
business  organization.  We  simply  have  to  prove  that  it  does  not 
pay  to  do  it.  I  mean  pay  in  dollars  and  cents. 

Capital  faces  the  issue  squarely  and  has  for  years,  though  it  would 
not  recognize  the  fact  that  unless  it  (capital)  gave  a  fair  deal  to 
the  world  and  arranged  easy  credit  and  opportunity  for  housing, 
farm  settlement,  farm  mortgage,  labor  conditions,  etc.,  a  dissatisfied 
people  would  get  up  and  take  it  one  way  or  the  other.  The  angle 
of  Bolshevik  development  in  this  country  we  need  to  fear  is  not 
the  violent  lower  strata  who  read  their  own  primitive  nature  of 
direct  action  into  the  formula  that  the  college  man  and  parlor  agi- 
tator read  into  action  on  their  own  plane.  The  formula  is  the  same. 
Take  business  out  of  the  hands  of  private  enterprise  and  let  the 
Government  do  it.  Each  wants  to  be  the  Government  that  does  it, 
and  each  destroys  democracy  by  so  doing.  It  makes  no  difference 
whether  it  is  the  capitalist  class  that  grasps  all  the  power  and  refuses 
representation  to  the  other  class  or  the  I.  W.  W.  class.  The  danger 
to  representative  government  is  the  same.  We  are  in  danger  of 
alienating  our  aliens  by  putting  all  blame  on  them.  Better  look  to 
our  intellectuals  who  seek  to  overthrow  democracy  by  the  ballot. 

Prior  to  the  war  most  of  the  reformers  and  church  people  who 
wanted  to  make  things  better  in  our  country  looked  upon  Germany 
as  their  model.  In  their  present  repudiation  of  things  German  they 
have  not,  unfortunately,  stopped  to  remember  their  previous  attach- 
ment for  German  ideals  which  have  made  part  of  their  own  program. 
They  have  forgotten.  I  want  them  to  remember. 

I  wish  to  be  understood  as  appreciating  the  sincere  purpose  of 
the  individuals  who  are  clamoring  for  State  socialism,  but  I  must 
point  out  the  dangers  I  see  through  their  organized  effort.  Much 


HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS.  565 

of  this  organization  is  so  subtly  distributed  and  much  of  it  is  under 
the  guise  of  church  work,  welfare,  and  educational  organizations. 

Xow,  our  first  great  departure  from  the  American  idea  was  in  the 
rural  credit  bill.  I  believe — in  fact,  I  know — it  was  fostered  in  the 
beginning  in  this  country  directly  by  those  interested  through  Ger- 
many; we  have  since  found  out  Germany  has  been  undermining 
everything  pertaining  to  an  individual,  democratic  form  of  govern- 
ment for  years,  because  they  saw  that  just  as  far  as  you  could  get  the 
Government  interested  in  going  into  business  and  establishing  bu- 
reaus, was  it  easy  to  control  politically.  Where  we  saw  the  begin- 
ning of  it  was  when  the  American  commission  went  abroad  under 
the  auspices  of  the  Southern  Commercial  Congress. 

Mr.  Taft  appointed  the  first  commission  to  investigate  rural 
credit  at  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Herrick  and  Ralph  Ingalls,  and  Mr. 
Herrick  tells  me  he  got  his  first  idea  of  agricultural  credit  sitting  at 
a  banquet  next  to  Kaiser  Wilhelm,  who  asked  him  what  he  did  for 
agricultural  credit  in  this  country.  That  question  set  a  group  of 
bankers  here  studying  better  forms  of  agricultural  credit.  They 
had  not  gone  very  far  in  that  study  before  they  found  that  the  man 
who  started  the  very  cooperation  that  Germany  was  remarkable  for 
was  a  man  named  Carey,  over  here  in  Philadelphia,  and  that  what 
was  then  known  in  Germany  as  the  landwirtschaft,  and  the  whole 
German  idea  of  taking  care  of  all  this  agricultural  credit  and  of 
colonization  through  State  aid  was  Bismarck's  buying  up,  you  might 
say,  the  opposition  or  pure  cooperation  and  financing  it  from  the 
State  treasuries  so  he  could  control  it,  and  that  is  the  thing  that 
fooled  us.  This  hurried  report  of  the  American  commission  that 
studied  three  months  to  investigate.  Mr.  Herrick  took  the  position 
•that  we  should  follow  along  the  lines  of  pure  cooperation,  not  State 
aid,  and  was  trying  to  get  the  bankers  in  this  country  to  see  that  they 
must  establish  long-term  mortgages  with  better  forms  of  credit  and 
interest  and  cooperation.  But  the  Democratic  regime  came  in,  and, 
unfortunately,  the  men  W7ho  carried  on  the  work  in  the  Southern 
Commercial  Congress  in  sending  the  American  commission  abroad 
saw  only — well,  they  were  only  over  there  three  months,  and  did  not 
have  as  much  time  to  spend  investigating  as  Mr.  Herrick's  people, 
who  stayed  there  four  years;  but  these  people  in  three  months  saw 
the  surface  things  being  done  and  saw  all  these  different  govern- 
ments doing  things  for  agricultural  credit  and  colonization. 

Xow,  when  they  saw  that,  they  came  back  here,  and  you  all  know 
11.  e  story  of  the  Federal  farm  loan  act  which  was  evolved  out  of  that. 
Xow.  all  of  this  time  those  people  who  were  concerned  in  this  idea  of 
world  domination  were  trying,  through  the  governments  of  all  coun- 
.tries,  to  make  us  see  that  the  German  ideal  of  government  was  the 
right  ideal,  and  that  for  the  Government  to  do  it  all  and  go  into  all 
lines  of  business,  giving  them  control  through  all  these  bureaus, 
.simply  made  it  easier  for  them  to  control  things  from  Berlin.  There 
is  not  time  to  go  into  all  I  know  on  that  subject,  but  it  is  a  great,  big 
subject,  gentlemen;  if  you  follow  it  down,  you  will  find  that  investi- 
gation will  prove  my  statement. 

Xow,  if  the  hearings  on  the  Curtis  bill  had  gone  ahead  this  whole 
matter  would  have  been  cleaned  up.  I  took  great  pains  to  make  the 
-matter  bipartisan  in  all  the  publicity  that  was  sent  out,  and  I  put 


566  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Senator  Sheppard's  picture  right  next  to  Senator  Curtis,  and  put  Dr. 
Carver,  of  Harvard,  on  the  page  with  them;  and  I  was  not  mani- 
fested in  the  publicity.  I  talked  with  the  Senators  on  the  Senate 
Agricultural  Committee  and  told  them  I  would  send  out  stories  for 
each  one  of  their  statements.  I  was  going  to  use  the  Senators  on  that 
committee  because  of  their  prominence  to  carry  the  message  to  the 
people  as  to  what  we  were  trying  to  work  out,  so  the  people  would 
understand  what  we  were  trying  to  do,  and  all  were  agreed  to  it. 
Senator  Gore  was  very  much  my  friend  on  the  whole  matter,  and, 
finally,  one  day,  after  the  hearings  wTere  set 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  prepared  the  publicity,  you  say? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes ;  I  helped  to  prepare  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  this  one  of  the  articles  in  Sea  Power  of  April, 
1919? 

Mrs.  LUND.  It  is  one  of  the  articles  which  Senator  Harding  made 
up  from  data  which  I  gave  him. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  furnished  the  information  in  it? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  prepare  the  article? 

Mrs.  LUND.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Senator  himself? 

Mrs.  LUND.  The  Senator  prepared  it  from  some  of  the  material  I 
gave  him. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Is  that  the  Senator  Harding  article? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  entitled,  "  Rooting  Valor  in  American  Soil," 
by  Senator  Warren  G.  Harding,  of  Ohio,  in  the  Sea  Power  for  April, 
1919. 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  went  to  Senator  Gore's  office  and  asked  his  secretary 
if  the  hearings  would  begin  on  the  day  they  were  set,  and  his  secre- 
tary, who  knew  me  very  well,  said,  "  Well,  Fred  Howe  has  been  over 
here  and  wants  them  postponed."  That  was  Frederick  Howe,  the 
immigration  commissioner  at  Ellis  Island.  He  has  been  a  member  of 
my  own  board  and  he  has  never  yet  resigned  from  it,  yet  he  has 
worked  against  me  all  of  the  time  on  this  proposition,  because  Mr. 
Howe  believes  the  Government  should  do  it  all,  and  I  showed  how 
the  Government  did  not  need  to  do  it,  how  credit  could  be  mobilized 
in  the  communities. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Who  is  this  Mr.  Howe? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Frederick  Howe,  the  commissioner  of  immigration  at 
Ellis  Island,  in  the  Labor  Department.  He  is  an  appointee  of 
Louis  Post.  Mr.  Howe  had  been  over  before  the  committee  and  had 
asked  them  to  postpone  the  hearings  on  the  bill;  evidently  he 
did  not  want  hearings  on  the  bill.  That  was  as  much  as  the  sec- 
retary told  me.  I  walked  over  to  see  Senator  Gore  and  Senator  Gore 
was  all  fussed  up.  He  said,  "  Mrs.  Lund,  I  am  not  going  to  have 
these  hearings."  "  Well,"  I  said,  "  what  is  the  matter?  "  "  Well,"  he 
said,  "  I  have  been  told  it  is  nothing  on  earth  but  a  demagogic  move 
on  the  part  of  the  Republicans  to  secure  the  soldier  vote."  He  did 
not  mention  Mr.  Howe. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  was  in  reference  to  a  hearing  on  Senate 
2686? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes;  that  was  a  hearing  he  had  already  arranged  for 
and  was  just  as  much  pleased  about  as  anybody.  I  said,  "  You  know 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  567 

I  have  kept  this  thing  bipartisan."  He  said,  "I  know  you  have,  and 
you  are  all  right."  ""Well,"  I  said,  "  You  know  how  hard  I  tried  to 
Work  with  the  administration,  and  you  know,  Senator  Gore,  that  you 
were  just  as  mad  about  it  as  I  to  think  that  the  Socialists  in  the 
Labor  Department  ditched  us,  and  we  could  not  go  on  with  our 
plans.''  He  said.  "  I  know  I  was,  and  they  treated  you  rough,  but  I 
don't!  know  about  this  hearing."  He  said,  "  The  other  fellows — the 
Republicans — will  take  advantage  of  it  if  -you  don't.  I  "know  that 
you  do  not  care  about  the  Republicans  or  the  Democrats,  but  the 
Republicans  will  be  glad  to  get  this  over  on  us."  I  do  not  remember 
the  exact  words,  but  that  is  the  gist.  Now,  gentlemen,  the  hearings 
were  never  called.  Benjamin  Marsh  was  also  a  caller  at  the  com- 
mittee who  tried  to  keep  this  hearing  from  going  on.  They  were  not 
held  at  all.  Later  Senator  Weeks  put  in  a  bill. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Did  Marsh  try  to  keep  them  from  going  on? 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  inferred  that.  I  was  not  told  so.  I  was  not  told  who 
said  these  things,  but  I  know  what  Marsh  always  says  when  he 
talks  about  this  work. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Is  that  the  same  Marsh  who  appeared  before  this 
committee  the  other  day? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Ben  Marsh.  I  suppose  so;  he  appears  before  almost 
every  committee. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Did  I  understand  you  to  say  that  Howe,  commissioner 
of  immigration  at  Ellis  Island,  is  an  appointee  of  Louis  Post? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes.  He  is  a  friend  of  Louis  Post  and  he  selected  him. 
I  suppose  Secretary  Wilson  appointed  him. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Mr.  Post  would  not  be  in  position  to  appoint  him  him- 
self, would  he? 

Mrs.  LUND.  No:  except,  as  you  know,  Secretarj7  Wilson  when  Mr. 
Post  first  came  there — I  do  not  know  how  it  is  now — leaned  very 
heavily  upon  Mr.  Post.  I  spent  a  great  deal  of  time  in  the  depart- 
ment, and  the  department  took  up  my  plans  at  one  time  and  read 
from  them  verbatim  in  reports  to  the 'Secretary,  and  Mr.  Post  came 
out  with  statements  to  the  press,  which  I  still  have,  saying  they  were 
going  to  cooperate  with  me. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  department  took  up  your  plan? 

Mrs.  LUND.  The  Department  of  Labor,  the  first  year  of  the  Wilson 
administration,  and  pretty  nearly  the  first  month  of  the  year. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  they  represented  in  the  Grosser  bill? 

Mrs.  LIND.  They  took  all  of  my  plans  exactly  as  I  outlined  them, 
the  magnificent  coordination  which  I  had  worked  out  for  Bureau  of 
Immigration  use  in  the  night  schools,  so  as  to  educate  these  immi- 
grants into  better  citizenry  and  to  put  those  that  belonged  on  the  land 
where  they  could  get  on  the  land,  and  link  it  up  with  various  cham- 
bers of  commerce  so  that  those  who  belonged  in  industry  would  go 
there,  and  we  would  havp  n  sort  of  interlocking  bureau  of  informa- 
tion about  the,  matter.  That  was  all  put  in  under  the  head  of 
"Americanization,"  all  of  my  educational  plans,  and  all  of  the  plans 
that  were  outlined  in  the  Grosser  bill  were  my  colonization  plans, 
with  this  difference.  Mr.  Chairman,  that  they  wanted  the  Govern- 
ment to  do  it  all,  and  I  said  that  it  should  be  done  outside  the  Gov- 
ernment with  the  Government  cooperating;  that  the  Government 
should  set  the  standard,  should  regulate,  should  assist  business  men 
to  understand  how  they  could  mobilize  the  credit  in  the  local  com- 


568  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

munities  through  cooperation,  so  that  it  might  become  an  actual  long- 
term  credit  to  the  would-be  settler  who  had  very  small  means;  and 
that  the  standard  that  should  be  set  should  be  a  standard  so  that  peo- 
ple who  did  not  understand  farming  could  have  instruction  and  could 
have  the  proper  kind  of  rural  schools  and  social  life  in  the  communi- 
ties, because  the  reason  people  leave  the  farms  is  because  they  fail 
to  find  that  social  life  they  want  and  fail  in  general  prosperity.  This 
is  bound  to  be  true  when  the  individual  small  farmer  attempts  by 
himself  to  meet  this  vast  disorganized  marketing  system  which  is 
ours. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mrs.  Lund,  I  do  not  like  to  interrupt  you,  but  I 
should  like  to  get  the  matter  developed  in  a  logical  sequence.  Are 
you  familiar  with  the  Kelly  bill,  supported  by  the  Department  of 
Labor  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  No;  I  do  not  know  the  Kelly  bill.  The  Grosser  bill 
is  the  first  one  I  know,  except  the  building  and  loan  bill  and  the 
housing  bills. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  the  Kelly  bill  supplanted  the  Grosser  bill 
and  has  been  supported  by  Mr.  Post,  who  appeared  before  the  com- 
mittee last  year  in  support  of  the  Kelly  bill. 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  missed  the  Kelly  bill.  I  had  such  a  hectic  experi- 
ence regarding  the  Grosser  bill  I  am  sure  you  gentlemen  will  pardon 
me  for  thinking  that  the  administration  is  interested  in  keeping  me 
away  from  committees. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Who  do  you  mean  by  the  administration? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Well,  that  is  a  broad  word.  I  should  say  the  Socialists 
in  the  administration.  That  would  be  the  best  way  to  define  it. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Does  that  include  President  Wilson  and  Mr.  Tum- 
ulty? 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  do  not  think  President  Wilson  knows  anything  about 
it.  I  know  that  Col.  House  was  very  much  interested  "in  the  plan. 
I  had  a  letter  of  introduction  to  Col.  House  from  Senator  Sheppard, 
and  Col.  House  said,  "  I  like  you  plan  very  much.  I  think  we  ought 
to  take  that  up,  but  it  is  reconstruction  work.  Why  don't  you  take 
it  up  with  Secretary  Wilson?  "  I  said,  "  Thereby  hangs  a  tale,"  and 
I  told  him  about  my  experience  in  that  department,  in  the  Southern 
Commercial  Congress  and  Southern  Settlement  Development  and 
that  there  was  a  very  great  difference  of  opinion  among  the  men. 
They  believed  that  the  people-getting  agency  is  entitled  to  a  profit 
on  the  land  and  whatever  business  they  handle,  and  I  believe  that 
a  people-getting  agency  should  be  organized  not  to  sell  land  and  not 
to  make  a  profit.  Coif  House  said,  "  You  are  right,  and  I  am  going 
to  help  you.  I  will  speak  to  Secretary  Wilson,"  but,  as  you  know, 
he  has  since  then  been  a  very  busy  man.  Later  he  wrote  me  he  could 
do  nothing  about  it. 

Mr.  WHITE.  May  I  ask  you  one  question  for  my  own  information  ? 
Is  this  Louis  Post  you  refer  to  the  Louis  F.  Post  that  wrote  a  very 
illuminating  book,  as  he  supposed,  probably,  on  the  subject  of  single 
taxation,  taking  up  the  Henry  George  theory? 

Mrs.  LUND.  He  is  the  editor  of  The  Public,  and  an  ardent  single 
taxer,  and  in  the  last  few  years  has  become  a  State  Socialist.  Mrs. 
Post  has  been  a  Socialist  for  a  long  time,  but  I  understand  Mr.  Post 
did  not  come  over  to  the  fold  until  recently.  When  I  first  talked  with 


HOMES  FOR  SO r,r>i£BS.  569 

him  he  said  one  of  the  things  he  liked  about  my  plans  was  that  they 
were  wholly  democratic  without  being  too  paternal,  and  that  they 
were  not  socialistic,  and  did  not  make  the  Government  do  things, 
but  afterwards  he  evidently  changed  his  mind,  because  he  dropped 
this  plan  and  took  up  the  other.  I  want  to  make  clear  to  you  what 
the  Committee  on  Labor  did  on  the  hearings  on  the  Grosser  bill.  I 
asked  the  committee  to  heard  Carl  S.  Vrooman,  then  Assistant  Sec- 
ret ary  of  Agriculture:  Dr.  Thomas  N.  Carver,  of  Harvard,  who 
certainly  is  a  national  figure  on  this  subject. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Who  published  a  book  on  "  social  justice." 

Mrs.  LUXD.  Yes ;  and  his  book  on  "  rural  economics  "  is  a  text- 
book in  all  our  agricultural  colleges,  and  he  organized  the  work  in 
the  Department  of  Agriculture  which  is  being  carried  on  all  over 
our  -country — the  whole  system  of  rural  organization  he  outlined  in 
his  book  on  rural  economics — I  asked  them  to  hear  him.  I  asked 
them  to  hear  Leonard  G.  Robinson,  who  was  for  11  years  manager  of 
the  Jewish  agricultural  societj7,  and  who  has  had  more  experi- 
ence in  this  settlement  work  than,  perhaps,  anyone  else;  and  then  I 
asked  them  to  hear  Mrs.  Lund,  who  has  been  trying  to  bring  these 
people  together.  They  would  not  call  any  of  those  men  and  they 
would  not  call  me.  Finally  when,  through  the  influence  of  sev- 
eral Republicans,  I  got  a  hearing  there  was  no  quorum  present  that 
morning.  There  were  two  people  who  came  in,  and  they  adjourned; 
and  they  said  they  would  not  call  it  up  again,  but  I  could  send  in 
anything  I  wanted  to  have  printed  in  the  record;  and  it  stopped 
there.  I  did  not  send  my  statement.  And  I  had  the  same  experi- 
ence, as  I  have  told  you,  on  the  Curtis  bill;  and  when  the  Weeks 
bill  came  along,  which  provided  for  a  concurrent  resolution  estab- 
lishing a  commission  to  get  ready  to  do  the  thing — not  hurriedly 
but  wisely — that,  too,  was  buried  in  committee,  and  you  could  not 
get  it  out"  of  committee  by  any  possibility ;  so  we  are  now  not  ready 
for  farm  settlement. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Weeks  resolution,  to  which  you  refer,  is  that 
Senate  concurrent  resolution  Xo.  21? 

Mrs.  LUXD.  Yes;  Senate  concurrent  resolution  21,  September  27, 
1918. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  Mrs.  Lund,  I  came  to  the  hearing  this  morning  a 
little  late.  Are  you  going  into  your  theory  and  what  you  believe  to 
be  the  proper  method  to  handle  this  subject? 

Mrs.  LUXD.  Yes:  I  should  be  very  glad  to  go  into  that. 

Mr.  EIVSTOX.  Is  it  strictly  a  colonization  proposition  and  not  what 
they  call  an  infiltration  method? 

Mr~.  LUXD.  Mine  is  a  strictly  colonization  method,  including  in- 
dustrial housing  with  garden  plots — the  so-called  garden  city  idea; 
small  tracts  of  land  for  people  to  live  on  when  they  work  in  factor- 
ies, iisinsr  that  garden  plot  to  augment  their  wages. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mrs.  Lund,  'Senate  resolution  No.  21  refers  to  a 
great  many  other  subjects. 

Mrs.  LUXD.  Yes;  the  soldier  settlement  bill  is  down  toward  the 
bottom. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  includes  almost  everything  within  the  range 
of  our  war  and  peace  activities. 

Mis.  LUXD.  Yes:  it  was  to  be  a  reconstruction  measure,  and,  of 
course,  reconstruction  means  a  great  many  things. 


570  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  it  was  not  devoted  solely  to  this  soldier  set- 
tlement plan? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Oh,  no;  No.  16  refers  to  the  allotment  of  lands  to- 
returned  soldiers  and  sailors,  and  their  establishment  in  homes  on 
the  public  domain.  Now,  it  might  interest  you  to  know  that  Senator 
Weeks  was  willing  to  finance  a  colony  in — 

The  CHAIRMAN.  When  you  refer  to  No.  16.  you  mean  line  16, 
on  page  4. 

Mrs.  LUXD.  Yes;  that  is  what  I  mean. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  wanted  to  get  that  straight  in  the  record. 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  am  glad  that  you  call  me  back,  because  I  have  just 
passed  through  a  siege  of  sickness  and  have  been  in  the  hospital  two 
or  three  times  suffering  from  nervous  prostration.  My  doctor  has 
told  me  that  I  should  be  in  a  sanitarium  now.  One  thing  I  have 
lost  on  account  of  this  long  strain  is  my  memory,  and  it  is  sometimes 
difficult  for  me  to  pick  up  the  thread  of  what  I  have  said.  I  am  only 
about  50  per  cent  efficient  now,  because  I  am  in  need  of  rest  and 
should  have  relief  from  strain  resulting  from  what  I  have  been  going 
through  with,  caused  by  repeated  interference  with  my  plans. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  said  that  the  Curtis  bill  was  prepared  by 
you? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Was  the  Weeks  resolution  prepared  by  you? 

Mrs.  LUND.  No,  sir.  Senator  Weeks  said  that  it  ought  to  be  a 
part  of  the  policy  of  the  Republican  Party  to  show  the  capitalists 
of  this  country  generally  that  there  must  be  a  different  method  of 
financing  and  housing  farms,  otherwise,  we  must  expect  the  (Jov- 
ernment  to  do  it.  In  other  words,  we  must  have  an  adjustment  of 
credit  facilities  to  extend  this  sort  of  aid  to  home  purchasing,  just 
as  we  have  to  alter  credit  facilities  to  South  American  conditions. 
If  we  go  into  South  America  and  do  any  business,  we  must  give  long- 
time credit.  I  have  spent  a  great  deal  of  time  with  the  so-called 
conservative  group,  because,  as  I  have  said,  the  others  do  not  need 
converting  to  the  idea.  The  conservatives  have  not  thought  the 
plans  of  reformers  practical  and  so  have  not  advocated  them,  I 
wanted  to  gain  their  indorsement,  because,  if  they  approve,  capitalists 
will  finance  the  plans.  A  bank  president  once  told  me  that  bankers 
wanted  to  help  as  much  as  any,  only  reformers  always  brought  some 
plan  that  would  not  work  and  so  nothing  was  accomplished,  that 
remark  set  me  thinking,  and  the  result  is  now  indorsed  by  many 
bankers.  I  wanted  to  show  them  the  sound  finance  of  this  thing 
that  we  call  cooperation.  In  that  endeavor,  I  was  very  fortunate  in 
having  such  men  as  Myron  T.  Herrick  and  Mr.  Ingalls  to  back  up 
what  I  said  about  cooperation.  Their  book,  Rural  Credit,  tells  all 
about  cooperation.  They  studied  six  years,  and  their  expenditures 
have  been  something  like  $60.000,  I  "believe.  At  any  rate,  these 
gentlemen,  Senators  Wadsworth,  Smoot,  and  "Weeks,  and  others  I 
have  mentioned,  were  prepared  to  help  with  information  before  the 
committee  hearing  the  Curtis  bill,  and  they  have  given  me  permission 
in  magazine  articles  and  news  articles  to  say  that  they  believe  that 
the  financiers  of  this  country  must  concern  themselves  with  financing 
the  development  of  such  natural  resources  as  require  long-term  in- 
vestments and  low  rates  of  interest  and  land  settlement  and  housing 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  571 

on  long  terms  and  at  low  rates  of  interest,  and  they  are  prepared  to 
help  the  financial  world  to  understand  how  that  can  "be  done  without 
any  departure  from  what  they  understand  as  sound  economics. 

It  may  mean  something  to  you  when  I  say  that  Mr.  George  E. 
Roberts,  of  the  National  City  Bank,  took  considerable  time  inves- 
tigating these  different  details,  and  he  has  told  me  that  he  would 
pass  out  statements  to  the  financial  journals  over  his  desk  in  order 
to  help  the  financiers  to  see  this  need.  He  will  do  that  because  he  is 
deeply  interested  in  this  matter  of  land  settlement,  and  he  wanted 
very  much  to  have  Mr.  Vanderlip  interested  in  it  as  soon  as  he  re- 
turned. That  answers  the  question,  I  think,  that  perhaps  may  be 
in  your  minds  as  to  why  I  selected  for  the  work  that  I  have  in  mind 
those  men  who  have  not  usually  been  associated  in  the  public  mind 
with  so-called  progressive  ideas. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  mean  Senator  Weeks  and  Senator  Hard- 
ing? 

Mrs.  LUXD.  Yes,  sir;  and  Senator  Wadsworth,  Senator  Smoot, 
Senator  Fernald,  and  Senator  Watson. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  Is  Senator  Weeks  helping  to  finance  your  plan? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes,  sir;  Senator  Weeks  has  given  a  good  deal  of 
money  to  it. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  He  has  given  a  good  deal  of  money  to  it? 

Mrs.  LUXD.  Yes,  sir;  and  he  has  recently  subscribed  $5.000  to  our 
fund  of  $100,000  to  carry  on  this  work.  I  was  with  Col.  Robert  Bacon 
only  a  week  before  he  died,  and  he  said  that  he  would  give  a  dinner 
to  the  capitalists,  which  Senators  Wadsworth  and  Weeks  and  others 
would  attend,  and  at  which  they  would  advocate  this  plan  to  the 
capitalists.  Then  I  had  the  news  of  his  death  from  an  operation  the 
following  week.  Col.  Bacon  said  there  was  no  question  about  being 
able  to  raise  money  according  to  my  plans. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  Senator  Wadsworth  and  Senator  Harding 
.subscribe  ? 

Mrs.  LUXD.  Yes,  sir;  Senator  Harding  not  Senator  Wadsworth. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  Who  are  the  others  who  have  subscribed? 

Mrs.  LUXD.  Col.  Robert  M.  Thompson,  Senator  Curtis,  and  others. 

Mr.  JOHXSOX.  How  is  this  money  used? 

Mrs.  LUXD.  I  have  a  letter  from  Senator  Weeks  which  you  may 
see.  Senator  Weeks  subscribed  $5,000  to  be  used  when  the  other 
$100,000  was  secured. 

Mr.  BEXHAM.  You  spoke  of  your  board.  Are  we  to  understand 
that  you  selected  anyone  you  wanted  on  your  board  without  having 
lir-t  consulted  with  the  people  who  were  appointed? 

Mrs.  LUXD.  Xo.  sir.  We  are  a  legal  entity  organized  as  a  non- 
profit-making association  under  the  laws  of  New  Jersey.  We  did 
not  have  a  committee  on  finance  or  a  president  for  the  reason  that  it 
took  me  a  long  time  to  make  big-brained  busy  men  see  the  impor- 
tance of  this  work,  and  I  knew  that  lesser  minds  could  not  carry  it. 
Therefore  I  left  the  presidency  and  the  finance  committee  vacant  so 
that  these  big-brained  men  could  have  the  officers  and  finance  com- 
mittee as  they  wished  when  they  would  be  persuaded  to  take  it.  We 
have  a  committee  on  direction,  composed  of  Col.  Parker,  of  the  Sal- 
vation Army.  Dr.  Carver,  of  Harvard,  and  five  or  six  others.  I  have 


572  HOMES  TOK  SOLDIERS. 

the  names  here  in  a  little  booklet.  The  committee  on  direction  is  a 
sort  of  steering  committee,  and  any  name  that  I  wanted  to  propose 
for  this  board  was  put  up  to  the  committee  on  direction  and  voted 
on  at  a  regular  meeting.  I  conducted  my  work  for  nearly  a  year  at 
Fourteenth  Street  and  Second  Avenue  in  Xew  York  City,  but  I 
ought  to  tell  you  about  my  plan  before  I  tell  you  that.  This  commit- 
tee on  direction  meets  and  passes  on  any  matter  or  names  that  are 
brought  in  and  they  determine  what  they  will  do.  I  have  made  no 
attempt  to  get  up  a  membership  or  to  go  out  and  raise  money,  except 
as  this  aid  has  been  offered  to  me  to  help  me  to  conduct  the  work 
until  we  could  get  credit  mobilized  and  interested  enough  to  take 
it  up  and  to  see  that  this  matter  of  land  colonization  and  housing 
must  be  financed  at  a  low  rate  of  interest  to  the  people,  That  work, 
as  I  say,  because  of  the  death  of  Col.  Bacon,  is  still  waiting. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  You  stated  a  moment  ago  that  Senator  Weeks  and 
Senator  Harding  had  contributed  to  this  fund,  and  I  want  to  know 
how  that  money  is  used. 

Mrs.  LUND.  They  are  contributions  in  one  sense  of  the  word,  and 
to  make  that  clear  I  will  read  a  letter  from  Senator  Weeks  to  our 
treasurer,  Mr.  Walter  H.  Fahy,  of  34  Pine  Street,  New  York  City. 
The  letter  is  as  follows: 

DEAR  SIR:  I  am  glad  to  pledge  $5.000  to  a  fund,  to  be  paid  when  the  balance 
of  $100,000  has  been  subscribed,  to  be  furnished  to  the  Forward-lOrthe-Land 
League  and  to  be  used  to  hasten  its  work. 

I  think  the  plan  is  practical  and  American.  It  should  make  unused  land 
productive,  give  homes  and  independence  to  those  who  want  to  possess  them 
through  their  own  efforts,  and  insure  for  this  reason  their  prosperity.  It  will 
become  a  powerful  factor  in  combating  the  spirit  of  disorder  and  rebellion 
typified  by  Bolshevism,  and  the-  curtailment  of  human  freedom  and  progress 
which  socialism  seeks  to  impose. 

The  land  league,  nonprofit  making  but  self-supporting,  needs  only  lo  be 
understood  to  command  the  support  of  thinking,  responsible  people.  It  can 
contribute  much  to  Americanization,  to  the  development  of  a  free  and  powerful 
people  in  accordance  with  the  best  traditions  of  our  Government,  while  increas- 
ing our  industrial  and  national  wealth. 

Therefore  I  regard  my  subscription  as  a  contribution  to  our  national  well- 
being. 

Very  truly,  yours,  JOHN  W.  WRKKS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  the  date  of  that  letter  > 

Mrs.  LUND.  May  21,  1919. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  How  much  did  Senator  Harding  contribute  to  this 
fund? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Senator  Harding  and  a  number  of  gentlemen  con- 
tributed smaller  amounts  of  money  from  time  to  time.  Three  or  four 
of  them  made  contributions  simply  to  cover  my  living  expenses 
while  I  was  working.  Because  there  are  State  Socialists  in  both 
parties,  people  who  think  that  the  Government  should  do  all  these 
things,  it  has  been  difficult  to  handle  my  work. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Do  you  represent  the  Socialists  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  represent  the  Socialists.  How  could 
you  get  any  such  idea  ? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I  am  simply  asking  that  for  information,  I  am 
trying  to  learn. 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  have  been  trying  to  make  it  clear  that  they  are  the 
people  who  have  been  antagonizing  me  all  the  time.  I  want  to- 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  573 

make  it  clear  that  it  is  not  at  all  partisan,  because  there  are  many 
people  in  the  Republican  Party  who  believe  that  way,  as  well  as  in 
the  Democratic  Party.  The  Socialists  in  the  Republican  Party 
work  quite  closely  with  the  Socialists  in  the  Democratic  Party  in 
their  efforts  to  have  the  Government  to  do  these  things.  They  would 
like  to  create  a  condition  where  each  farm  would  be  a  Government 
farm:  they  would  pass  this  bill  and  that  bill,  and  bills  covering  a 
thousand  different  things  until  we  would  have  a  million  bureaus 
operating,  and  the  Government  converted  into  a  bureaucracy.  I  do 
not  think  we  should  have  that  without  fighting  against  it. 

It  would  simplify  matters  if  all  these  State  Socialists  would  get  a 
party  of  their  own. 

Mr.  MAYS.  You  said  that  Senator  Weeks  thought  the  financiers 
should  handle  these  undertakings? 

Mrs.  LTTND.  Yes,  sir.  Two  years  ago,  when  I  first  got  Senator 
Weeks's  attention,  he  called  several  Senators  into  his  office  and  said 
to  them,  "  This  is  a  thing  that  is  very  important,  because,  as  Mrs. 
Lund  has  pointed  out,  this  radical  wave  is  gathering  impetus,  and 
the  only  way  to  meet  it  is  by  showing  that  the  capitalists  of  this 
country  are^  concerned  with 'their  economic  well-being,  and  this 
matter  of  assisting  people  to  proper  homes  is  economically  sound 
and  basic.  It  is  a  thing  that  we  must  give  attention  to."  I  said  to 
him.  •"  The  thing  to  do  is  something  that  will  show  that  capital  is 
willing  to  do  it;  that  it  is  willing  to  provide  long  terms  for  pay- 
ment: that  it  is  willing  to  provide  community  organization  and  in- 
struction, and  all  at  a  low  rate  of  interest.  It  is  not  enough  to  say 
that  we  are  willing  to  do  it,  but  actually  to  do  it  is  the  important 
thing."  He  said,  "I  should  like  very  much  to  do  that  myself  up  in 
Massachusetts."  He  said,  "  I  want  a  colony  up  there.  There  are 
some  of  my  friends  who  will  go  in  with  me,  and  we  will  get  some- 
thing ready  for  the  soldiers  when  they  come  back  from  Europe." 
He  then  said,  "  You  go  and  see  Charlie  Hatfield.  and  he  will  help 
you."  Well.  I  did  go  to  Boston  to  see  Mr.  Hatfield;  and  I  found 
Mr.  Hatfield  like  a  great  many  other  bankers  who  have  the  idea 
that  things  are  very  well  as  they' are.  There  are  a  half  a  dozen  bank- 
ers, perhaps,  who  see  we  must  do  something;  the  rest  are  so  busy 
adding  up  figures  that  I  do  not  get  their  attention  long  enough  tp 
interest  them. 

Mr.  Hatfield  said,  "  Yes ;  I  will  attend  to  that  right  away  " ;  but  he 
never  did.  Senator  Weeks  is  a  very  busy  man.  I  spoke  to  him  about 
it  two  or  three  times,  and  he  said,  "  I  will  write  to  Charley  Hatfield 
about  it."  At  the  end  of  the  session,  or  when  Congress  adjourned 
this  year,  I  said  to  Senator  Weeks  in  regard  to  this  Massachusetts 
movement  to  help  the  returning  soldiers,  "  There  is  no  time  now  to 
reach  the  soldiers  or  to  take  care  of  them  in  the  regular  way,  but  if 
we  rush  we  can  take  care  of  most  of  the  unemployed  soldiers  in  vaca- 
tion gardens.  We  may  take  care  of  the  work  in  that  way  this  year 
and  get  ready  by  fall  for  the  permanent  housing."  He  said,  "  How 
can  you  do  it?  "  I  said,  "We  will  provide  barracks  and  tents  and 
make  a  vacation  proposition  of  it  until  we  can  build  permanently." 
He  said,  "  Run  up  to  Boston  and  see  what  can  be  clone  while  I  am 
down  in  Florida.  I  am  going  to  Florida,  and  then  I  will  come  up 
there  and  see  what  can  be  done  about  it."  This  was  to  be  according 
to  the  standard  of  the  Forward  to  Land  League — on  long-term  credit, 


574  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

with  6  per  cent  profit  on  the  undertaking.  When  I  called  on  Mr. 
Hatfield  on  the  second  trip  he  was  very  helpful  and  regretted  that 
he  had  not  taken  it  up  before. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Six  per  cent  profit  for  whom  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  For  the  men  who  buy  and  equip  the  land. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  mean  the  promoter  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  As  I  was  the  promoter  and  did  not  get  anything,  I 
guess  the  promoter  does  not  get  anything. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  mean  6  per  cent  profit  for  those  who 
finance  it? 

Mrs.  LUND.  For  those  who  finance  it.  That  is  an  important  point — 
that  you  can  not  have  anything  of  lasting  consequence  in  this  world 
if  it  can  not  pay  expenses  and  pay  enough  profit  to  keep  business  men 
willing  to  devote  time  to  it,  knowing  that  it  is  a  good  business  invest- 
ment. It  would  have  been  a  perfectly  simple  thing  to  induce  philan- 
thropists to  take  it  up  on  a  charitable  basis.  They  would  finance  it 
without  any  thought  of  profit,  but  that  would  not  help  the  problem 
at  all. 

I  prefer  the  method  that  was  used  30  years  ago  in  England,  when 
philanthropists  and  the  public-spirited  people  were  so  alarmed  about 
the  social  conditions  and  about  the  crime  and  bad  health  incident  to 
the  bad  housing  conditions.  They  organized  garden  cities  and  estab- 
lished suburban  housing  and  garden  plots,  and  they  established 
many  small  farms  on  the  basis  of  6  per  cent  profit  to  those  who 
financed  the  undertakings. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Do  you  consider  Senator  Harding  as  one  of  the 
financiers  of  this  project? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes,  sir;  Senator  Harding  is  interested. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Does  he  want  6  per  cent  profit? 

Mrs.  LUND.  He  did  not  say  anything  about  profits,  one  way  or  the 
other.  He  was  interested  in  marking  the  argument  to  show  business 
men  that  it  could  be  done.  I  think  Senator  Harding  would  be  called 
a  contributor  to  working  fund  bearing  no  profit.  I  am  firmly  set 
against  charity.  We  do  not  need  charity  for  our  people,  whether 
soldiers  or  working  people.  Anybody  that  starts  out  to  do  anything 
on  the  basis  of  charity  sets  us  back.  Charity  interferes  very  mate- 
rially with  true  progress  along  these  lines. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  believe  that  small  profit  to  the  promoter  or 
financier  is  necessary  to  the  success  of  the  project? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes,  sir;  so  that  they  will  stay  in  it  and  pay  attention 
to  it.  We  need  strong  men  to  run  these  things.  We  require  the  best 
brains  in  the  country  to  carry  on  such  undertakings,  and  you  can  not 
get  the  best  brains  to  engage  in  business  continuously  unless  it  is 
profitable.  The  bread-and-butter  problem  is  always  with  you,  and  we 
want  to  show  business  men  how  they  can  do  these  things  profitably 
and  right. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  was  not  your  understanding  that  Senator 
Weeks  was  to  raise  $100,000  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  He  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  $100,000,  except  to 
help  start  the  subscription.  His  letter  shows  that  he  subscribed 
$5,000  to  be  paid  when  the  balance  of  the  fund  of  $100,000  had  boon 
subscribed.  Other  money  he  gave  was  a  contribution  to  a  working 
fund,  and  there  was  no  profit  expected  on  that  fund  at  any  time. 
That  contribution  is  to  the  fund  to  carry  on  the  educational  propa- 
ganda that  we  need. 


HOMES   FOE  SOLDIERS.  575 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  do  not  understand  why  you  fail  to  realize  that 
there  are  plenty  of  opportunities  in  this  country,  and  places  to 
be  improved  in  the  West  and  other  parts  of  the  country  that  the 
Government  might  take  up,  and  at  the  same  time  let  your  plan  be 
applied  in  other  sections  of  the  country.  There  is  plenty  of  room 
for  both. 

Mrs.  LUND.  There  is  no  question  about  that. 

Mr.  SMITH.  You  do  not  need  any  legislation  to  carry  out  your 
plan. 

Mrs.  LUND.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Are  you  antagonizing  the  plan  proposed  in  the  bill 
that  is  pending  before  the  committee? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SMITH.  For  what  reason? 

Mrs.  LUND.  In  the  first  place 

Mr.  SMITH  (interposing).  If  there  is  plenty  of  room  in  the  coun- 
try for  both  plans,  I  do  not  see  why  you  would  be  concerned. 

Mrs.  LUND.  In  the  first  place,  we  are  facing  a  situation  in  which 
the  Government  needs  every  cent  that  it  can  get,  and  the  purchasing 
power  of  the  dollar  is  less  than  it  ever  was  before.  We  have  more 
than  one  and  a  half  million  acres  of  land  already  connected 
with  our  irrigation  projects,  1,641,699  acres  to  be  exact — that  is, 
land  that  is  under  water  and  can  be  used.  Then  we  have  something 
like  500,000,000  acres  of  unused  agricultural  land  all  over  the  coun- 
try. We  have  plenty  of  it  even  in  Indiana,  Ohio,  and  some  of  those 
States  not  supposed  to  have  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  mean  to  say  there  are  waste  lands  in  In- 
diana ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes,  sir ;  there  is  some  waste  land  in  Indiana.  I  have 
not  made  a  personal  investigation  of  it,  but  the  reclamation  people 
who  have  investigated  it,  have  told  me  so. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  the  lady  does  not  require  legislation 
in  order  to  carry  out  her  plan,  I  think  she  should  devote  her  atten- 
tion to  the  bill  that  is  pending  before  the  committee.  Mrs.  Lund, 
I  think  you  are  making  a  splendid  statement  and  are  contributing 
a  lot  of  information  to  the  committee,  but  we  have  a  concrete  propo- 
sition here,  and  if  you  do  not  need  any  legislation  to  carry  out  your 
plan,  we  are  not  concerned  with  it.  Why  not  tell  us  wherein  we  are 
in  error  with  regard  to  this  bill  pending  before  the  committee? 

Mis.  LUND.  I  will  be  glad  to  do  it,  but  other  questions  were  asked 
me  first. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Do  you  confidently  believe  that  for  that  profit  cap- 
ital could  be  induced  to  finance  this  situation  in  order  to  meet  the 
present  exigency? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes,  sir;  and  I  will  say  that  I  have  been  assured  that 
there  was  no  question  whatever  but  what  we  would  get  all  the  money 
we  wanted. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Will  you  state  to  the  committee  approximately  how 
much  you  think  it  would  require  to  meet  the  exigencies  as  they  arise 
during  the  next  three  or  four  years  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Well,  will  that'be  confined  to  the  matter  of  the  return- 
ing soldiers? 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  said  the  exigency. 

Mrs.  LUND.  Do  you  mean  the  soldiers  that  are  registered? 
133319—19 37 


576  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

i 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  would  not  use  the  word  "  registered,"  because  I  do- 
not  pass  any  judgment  on  that. 

Mrs.  LUND.  No,  sir;  but  do  you  mean  the  registered  men  who  want 
farms  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  Those  that  might  want  to  farm. 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  understand  that  they  have  a  lineup  on  them  in  the 
Reclamation  Bureau.  Let  us  talk  about  them.  Someone  asked  me  a 
while  ago  what  was  my  plan,  and  where  it  may  be  carried  out.  When 
you  say,  "  your  plan,5'  I  think,  perhaps,  you  mean  to  refer  to  my 
method  of  mobilizing  capital  and  showing  capital  how  this  can  be 
done.  In  the  first  place,  you  are  familiar  with  the  land  business,  and 
you  know  that  the  chief  expense  connected  with  it  is  in  getting  the- 
people  to  the  land.  The  chief  expenses  in  connection  is  advertising, 
the  hire  of  automobiles,  salesmanship,  etc.  Then,  the  people  who  are 
placed  on  the  land  do  not  stay  put. 

For  every  three  or  four  placed  on  the  farm,  there  is  only  one  who 
stays  and  finishes  the  thing  up  as  a  farmer.  That  is  a  matter  of  his- 
tory and  statistics.  Now,  I  devised  this  Bureau  of  Information  idear 
and  it  is,  perhaps,  the  only  thing  that  is  really  original  in  my  planr 
because  thousands  of  people  have  devised  plans  for  communities  and 
have  organized  communities.  If  we  were  to  have  in  every  principal 
city  bureaus  of  land  information,  where  it  would  be  understood  there 
was  no  land  for  sale,  but  where  a  man  who  wanted  to  buy  land  could 
come  and  have  a  tract  of  land  looked  up  to  find  out  whether  the  title 
was  right,  or  whether  the  contracts  were  honest  contracts,  whether 
the  prospective  farmer  had  capital  enough,  and,  generally,  where  he 
could  get  information  as  to  how  he  should  proceed  with  his  farm 
operations,  it  would  be  a  valuable  thing.  I  have  lived  in  the  West 
long  enough  to  know  that  much  money  is  squandered  because  there  is 
no  direction.  I  know  practically  all  of  the  big  land  operators  in  the 
West  and  the  colonization  men  who  are  connected  with  the  railroads, 
and  they  tell  me  that  our  people  waste  every  year  almost  enough  to 
keep  themselves  going  because  they  do  not  know  how  to  direct  their 
purchasing  power.  If  we  could  have  bureaus  of  information  estab- 
lished in  all  of  the  principal  cities,  and  have  the  extension  depart- 
ments from  the  agricultural  colleges  come  into  the  cities  to  teach 
classes  in  agriculture  and  home  economics  and  rural  economics,  it 
would  be  a  great  blessing  to  the  working  people.  In  other  words,  if 
we  could  bring  to  the  prospective  farmer  and  instruct  him — as  we  in- 
struct the  man  actually  farming 

Mr.  WHITE  (interposing).  Would  you  teach  the  housekeepers,  or 
mothers,  or  the  children  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes ;  the  mothers,  and  especially  the  children. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  want  to  ask  another  question :  Don't  you  think  that 
the  mothers  have  the  art  of  housekeeping  down  pretty  fine,  gener- 
ally? 

Mrs.  LUND.  If  you  were  in  the  East  Side  of  New  York,  where  I 
have  been,  you  would  not  think  so. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  am  talking  about  the  West. 

Mrs.  LUND.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  am  not  speaking  of  the  cities. 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  am  speaking  now  of  the  cities. 

Mr.  WHITE.  You  are  speaking  of  the  large  cities? 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  577 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  confess  that  my  mind  right  now  is  mostly  on  the 
large  cities.  I  am  thinking  more  of  the  industrial  mother. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  do  not  want  to  divert  your  attention  from  your 
main  statement. 

Mrs.  LUND.  That  is  an  important  question,  because  I  know  that 
there  are  housekeepers  through  the  West  who  really  do  not  know 
how  to  feed  their  families  and  do  not  know  how  to  prepare  the  most 
simple  food.  We  have  too  many  frills  on  the  domestic  scienc 
idea 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  you  will  allow  me  to  interrupt  you,  in  this 
article  by  Senator  Harding,  of  Ohio,  in  the  April  number  of  Sea 
Power,  is  that  statement,  and  I  think  you  could  give  us  some  valu- 
able information  in  regard  to  this : 

Somewliat  strangely,  the  torch  that  burrs  brightest  in  these  dark  cellars  of 
America  though  where  land  policies  languish  is  that  which  has  been  held 
aloft  by  a  woman.  Mrs.  Haviland  H.  Lund  developed  her  theories  of  getting 
people  on  the  land,  when  a  decade  ago  she  edited,  in  Los  Angeles,  a  publication 
known  as  Little  Farms  Magazine.  Upon  her  theories  was  built  the  Forward- 
to-the-Land  League,  a  national  organization.  To  her  the  proper  solution  of 
the  land  problem  has  been  a  Holy  Grail  which  she  has  pursued  ever  since.  She 
has  preached  her  gospel  from  door  to  door,  from  office  to  office. 

From  this  it  appears  that  you  have  been  working  on  this  question 
for  10  years. 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  inaugurated  any  projects  in  that  10 
years  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  am  glad  you  asked  that  question,  but  may  I  finish 
my  other  statement  before  I  answer  it  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Certainly. 

Mrs.  LUND.  By  bringing  these  extension  workers  into  the  cities, 
and  by  the  formation  of  night  classes,  they  can  teach  these  prospec- 
tive farmers  what  to  do  on  the  land,  and  it  has  this  effect,  that  instead 
of  having  to  do  as  a  land  company  has  to  do,  that  is,  advertise  in 
order  to  get  the  lands  before  the  people  at  great  expense,  the  people 
in  the  cities  seeing  the  announcement  in  all  of  the  daily  papers  that 
Prof.  So-and-so  will  teach  these  classes  at  night,  those  who  are 
rurally-minded  come  from  all  parts  of  the  city  to  hear  him.  They 
register  on  cards  that  I  have  made  out,  that  gives  full  information 
as  to  the  number  of  working  members  in  the  family,  the  amount  of 
education  and  capital  they  have,  what  their  religion  is,  and  such 
other  information  as  would  be  useful.  These  people  would  be  classi- 
fied, and  this  matter  of  classifying,  as  every  practical  colonization 
man  knows,  is,  perhaps,  the  crux  of  the  problem.  The  immigration 
leaders  and  labor  leaders  all  said  that  there  was  no  question  but  that 
through  registration  we  could  get  the  people  who  were  frightened 
because  of  the  exploitation  that  had  been  theirs  at  the  hands  of  com- 
mercial colonization  men  would  have  confidence  in  us.  The  religious 
element  is  an  important  one,  because  it  has  been  the  history  of  these 
movements  that  the  colonies  that  have  accomplished  anything  wbrth 
while  have  had  some  sort  of  religious  tie  that  held  them  together. 
Therefore,  I  would  take  these  matters  up  with  the  religious  organiza- 
tions, and  get  them  to  put  rural  education  or  agriculture  in  their 
missionary  instructions,  so  that  the  clergymen  or  missionaries  would 
have  practical  knowledge  of  farming  so 'that  they  could  advise  and 


578  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

instruct  those  in  their  parish.  That  religious  principle  is  an  impor- 
tant one. 

We  found  that  those  people  in  the  cities  who  registered,  75  per  cent 
had  had  fanning  experience  here  or  abroad.  In  other  words,  it  illus- 
trated forcibly  that  the  deplorable  exodus  from  the  country  to  the 
city  were  the  very  ones  wanting  to  get  back  to  the  farm.  Our  regis- 
trants wanted  to  go  where  they  could  live  close  together,  and  they 
demanded  schools  as  good  in  the  country  as  they  had  in  the  city.  As 
you  know,  the  rural  schools  are  not  as  good  as  they  ought  to  be. 

I  asked  the  newspapers  to  help  me  get  this  idea  across  to  the  people 
and  explained  there  was  no  profit — they  helped  loyally,  as  my  scrap- 
books  testify.  This  publicity  helped  me  interest  commercial  organi- 
zations because  it  showed  them  how  we  could  get  the  people  with  far 
less  cost. 

I  spoke  to  commercial  organizations,  such  as  chambers  of  com- 
merce, bankers'  associations,  etc.,  and  I  said,  "  Now,  gentlemen,  you 
want  settlers ;  you  have  been  giving  a  lot  of  money  to  this  organiza- 
tion and  that  organization  to  bring  you  people,  and  you  say  the 
money  is  wasted,  and  they  have  never  brought  you  any  settlers,  or 
if  they  brought  a  few  they  did  not  stay,"  and  I  outlined  to  them 
this  system  of  lectures  and  publicity  which  I  had  in  the  cities  and 
showed  them  where  I  could  go  and  get  the  people ;  but  I  said,  "  That 
is  only  on  the  condition  that  they  have  the  tools  to  work  with."  I 
said,  "  You  do  not  expect  carpenters  to  build  a  house  unless  you  give 
them  the  tools.  If  a  man  has  had  hard  luck  and  has  pawned  his 
tools,  you  would  expect  to  put  up  the  money  to  get  those  tools  for 
him  before  he  built  the  house,  and  you  would  expect  to  deduct  the 
advanced  money  from  his  wages.  Farming  requires  a  good  deal  in 
the  way  of  tools. 

A  man  can  not  live  on  a  farm  unless  he  has  a  house  and  a  few 
chickens  and  pigs  and  farming  implements  and  seeds,  and  things  of 
that  sort,  and  those  things  have  to  be  supplied.  They  can  put  the 
little  money  they  have  on  the  first  payment,  and  if  you  standardize 
this  and  say  we  will  take  at  least  50  families  that  grouping  of  50  or  100 
families  insures  you  a  sufficient  number  of  settlers  so  that  the  over- 
head of  furnishing  that  group  of  settlers  scientific  direction  is  a  busi- 
ness proposition.  You  can  not  afford  a  scientific  director  for  1  man 
or  for  10  men,  but  if  you  are  bringing  50  or  100  men  you  can  afford 
to  give  them  a  special  adviser  and  director  to  help  them  with  their 
problems." 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mrs.  Lund,  how  does  Secretary.  Lane's  plan  differ 
from  yours?  Is  not  that  what  he  is  aiming  at? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Absolutely  the  same.  They  took  my  plan,  and  Mr. 
Newell,  then  director  of  reclamation,  was  on  my  board.  Mr.  Blanch- 
ard  promised  every  possible  help.  We  talked  for  weeks  in  Secretary 
Lane's  department  about  these  plans.  There  was,  of  course,  the 
usual  pull  and  haul  as  to  whether  it  would  be  in  the  Department 
of  the  Interior  or  the  Department  of  Agriculture  or  Labor. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  only  difference  between  you • 

Mrs.  LUND.  There  is  not  a  bit  of  difference. 

The  CHAIRMAN  (continuing).  The  only  difference  between  you  is 
this :  You  do  not  believe  in  the  Government  taking  this  up,  but  you 
believe  it  should  be  inaugurated  as  a  private  enterprise  ? 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  579 

Mrs.  LUND.  Absolutely.  I  am  not  going  to  say  a  word  about  tax- 
ing everybody  to  take  care  of  a  certain  class.  That  is  true,  but  it 
makes  no  difference,  in  my  argument.  It  is  not  necessary  and  I  have 
proved  that  it  is  not  necessary.  You  can  get  all  the  money  you  want 
in  localities  wanting  settlers  to  do  this  work  and  do  it  in  the  right 
way  without  asking  the  Government  for  it.  If  you  do  put  it  under 
the  Government,  then  it  means  this  interminable  building  of  bureas 
and  the  political  patronage  that  goes  with  it,  and  it  makes  no  differ- 
ence what  party  is  in  power  you  can  not  avoid  that  political  pat- 
ronage. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Mrs.  Lund,  you  have  not  answered  the  chairman's 
question  as  to  how  many  projects  you  have  started. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes.  I  read  from  this  article  where  you  had  in- 
augurated this  a  decade  ago,  and  I  was  wondering  whether  any  proj- 
ects had  been  started. 

Mrs.  LUND.  Xo ;  I  am  coming  to  that.  I  am  glad  you  called  me 
back. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Mrs.  Lund,  did  you  not  say  a  moment  ago  that  these 
plans  were  not  in  conflict  at  all,  that  the  Government  could  go  ahead 
with  its  plans  and  you  could  go  ahead  with  your  plan  and  that  there 
was  plenty  of  room  for  both? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Surely.  The  only  thing  is  people  will  not  as  readily 
enter  into  a  private  enterprise  when  they  know  the  Government 
will  do  it  all. 

Mr.  MAYS.  They  have  been  a  little  slow  in  putting  your  projects 
into  operation. 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes;  and  whenever  you  put  a  plan  before  the  people 
for  regulating  the  abuses  in  a  business  which  is  full  of  flagrant 
abuses,  and  this  fact  the  best  men  in  the  land  admit,  you  meet  with 
a  great  many  obstacles.  When  you  are  only  promising  a  man  6 
per  cent  on  his  money  and  trying  to  show  him  that  he  must  do  this 
for  national  betterment,  it  is  some  time  before  you  wake  him  up  to 
the  national  necessity.  The  projects  I  had  ready  many  times — and 
I  have  the  correspondence  to  prove  this — and  they  were  in  eight 
or  ten  different  States — the  business  men  were  ready  to  extend  this 
help.  Just  as  we  were  ready  would  come  letters  and  telegrams  and 
visitors  from  the  State  Socialists  in  this  administration  and  other 
Socialists  working  with  them  that  are  connected  with  the  Republican 
Party  and  land  organizations.  Do  not  think  there  is  anything 
partisan  in  this,  because  we  have  Gifford  Pinchot  and  Francis  Kel- 
lar  working  in  various  organizations;  they  believe  just  as  much  as 
Louis  Post  and  Fred  Howe  that  the  Government  ought  to  do  it  all, 
and  they  have  been  pulling  with  the  administration  on  this  on  all 
these  plans,  while  claiming  to  be  Republicans,  and  they  have  inter- 
fered directly  with  my  work  in  financing  these  colonies. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Mrs.  Lund,  you  only  have  20  minutes  more  in  which 
to  develop  all  your  ideas,  and  I  think  we  had  better  get  down  to 
something  definite. 

Mrs.  LUND.  The  chairman  asked  me  the  question. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Can  you  not  answer  categorically  the  chairman's 
question  as  to  how  many  experiments  you  have  made  and  how  many 
have  been  successful  without  explanation. 

Mr.  LUND.  I  can  not  without  explanation. 


580  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Have  you  made  any  at  all  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  No;  because  every  time  I  have  had  them  ready — and 
I  can  prove  they  have  been  ready — there  has  been  this  interference, 
and  it  might  be  considered  of  some  importance  to  the  Nation  if  any- 
body encouraging  a  plan  which  showed  and  proved  that  private 
capital  was  ready  to  finance  the  establishment  of  homes  for  the 
people  was  invariably  interrupted  by  a  certain  group  of  people  in 
the  United  States,  a  good  many  of  them  on  the  Government  pay 
roll,  and  so  kept  from  carrying  out  their  plan. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Mrs.  Lund,  if  you  have  been  interrupted  from  time 
to  time,  what  organization  have  you  now  that  will  take  this  thing 
up  practically,  will  get  it  started  in  the  next  three  months,  will 
provide  the  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  in  a  coordinated  way  to 
do  this  thing  privately  and  practically  and  uniformly  for  the  benefit 
of  the  soldiers?  How  do  you  think  that  can  be  done  immediately 
and  afford  any  relief  and  not  be  done  10  years  hence,  just  as  your 
past  experience  has  shown  it  has  not  been  done  in  the  last  10  years  ? 
Can  you  answer  that? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes ;  I  think  I  can. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  What  definite  plans  have  you  got  to  get  the  millions 
of  dollars  to  work  this  out  in  a  broad-gauged  way  from  private 
capital  ?  Have  you  that  in  hand  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Will  you  explain  that  to  us  without  taking  up  too 
much  time,  because  we  are  very  quickly  getting  to  the  point  where 
we  will  have  to  close  this  hearing. 

Mrs.  LUND.  Don't  you  see,  gentlemen,  that  if  a  certain  group  of 
people  in  power  can  go  again  and  again  and  break  up  the  work 
you  are  doing,  when  you  have  got  people  and  money  interested,  and 
can  throw  a  cloud  over  you — I  do  not  know  what  they  say,  but  again 
and  again  they  say,  "  She  has  not  done  this,  and  evidently  she  can 
not  do  it."  They  do  not  explain  that  they  have  always  been  on  the 
ground  to  say,  "  She  is  a  dangerous  woman."  I  do  not  know  what 
they  say  about  me,  but  I  know  that  every  time  that  anything  is 
started  the  people  backing  me  are  scared  away.  I  have  an  organi- 
zation that  can  work  in  five  minutes  if  it  can  be  determined  what 
is  behind  this  interference  and  stop  it.  Now,  I  have  so  many 
important  people  with  me  that  we  can  go  anyway. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Now,  Mrs.  Lund,  that  is  exactly  the  idea.  Your 
point  is.  then,  that  if  this  bill  which  is  now  pending  in  the  com- 
mittee is  not  passed,  then  you  and  your  organization,  and  principally 
through  you  own  initiative,  because  it  appears  here  from  the  testi- 
mony that  you  are  the  moving  spirit  in  this  whole  thing,  then 
through  your  organization  and  yourself,  and  your  own  energy  and 
experience,  you  expect  to  raise  the  national  organization  of  capital 
and  the  groups  of  private  capitalists  to  carry  this  thing  out. 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Within  the  next  few  months? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes;  I  think  it  could  be  done  inside  of  90  days,  all 
you  can  do  with  the  Government. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  What  proposals  have  you  in  the  way  of  getting  the 
money  which  only  await  your  word  that  this  bill  is  defeated  for 
them  to  come  right  in  and  pour  out  the  money  and  go  right  ahead? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  581 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  will  answer  that  question  in  this  way :  You  are  famil- 
iar with  the  drives  that  have  been  made  for  getting  money  in  differ- 
ent welfare  organizations  that  have  had  no  investment  features,  just 
simply  to  be  helpful.  A  long  time  before  anybody  began  to  do  it  I 
said  how  this  should  be  done  in  order  to  finance  each  unit  or  hous- 
ing, and  farm  settlement,  because  it  should  all  be  done  on  the  unit 
basis,  I  would  organize  what  I  call  a  rural  colony  foundation,  a  sepa- 
rate organization  from  the  Forward-to-the-Land  League,  and  limit 
the  profits  to  5  or  6  per  cent  or  whatever  the  people  when  they  got 
together  should  indicate  was  proper,  and  to  make  a  drive  for  money 
in  the  communities  wanting  settlers.  If  the  principal  cities  in  the 
State  of  Indiana  or  Ohio  organized  a  colonization  company,  with 
limited  profits  at  6  per  cent,  to  operate  on  a  certain  tract  of  land  in 
that  State,  and  would  make  a  stock  company  with  the  stock  at  $10 
a  share,  so  that  everybody  in  the  community  could  buy  it,  everyone 
would  want  to  help  get  farms  for  the  soldiers. 

When  congestion  in  European  cities  became  intolerable,  when  the 
health  and  efficiency  of  working  men  were  threatened,  public-spirited 
philanthropists  solved  the  problem  30  years  ago  by  the  purchase  of 
agricultural  land  near  by  large  cities.  They  limited  their  profit 
in  the  equipment  and  resale  of  those  lands  and  called  them  garden 
cities.  They  paid  an  unfailing  dividend. 

Not  only  is  congestion  in  America  becoming  a  menace,  but  the  dis- 
content of  our  people,  because  of  unemployment  and  sordid  living 
conditions,  with  scant  opportunity  for  advancement,  threatens  the 
very  foundations  of  society.  During  the  war  wages  were  high  and 
the  munition  camps  and  factories  were  beseiged  with  land  agents 
whose  only  thought  was  to  get  as  big  a  first  payment  as  possible. 
We  should  safeguard  this  home-purchasing  power  now  that  the 
hour  of  peace  has  come,  the  many  prosperous  working  people  find 
themselves  unemployed,  we  should  place  those  fitted  in  rural  col- 
onies. 

Is  it  not  time  for  us  to  follow  the  example  of  European  countries 
and  create  garden  homes  for  our  working  people  within  easy  dis- 
tance of  their  city  jobs,  and  farms  for  those  fitted  for  purely  agri- 
cultural pursuits? 

A  home  garden  gives  the  family  most  of  its  living  from  the  garden 
and  thus  enables  the  wprkingman  to  bank  most  of  his  wages.  The 
improvement  in  the  living  conditions  of  the  family  is  even  more  im- 
portant. "  It  is  the  divine  right  of  every  child  to  be  reared  in  a 
garden." 

Those  who  hare  left  the  country  for  the  city  frequently  wish  to 
return  to  farm  life,  and  will  do  so,  providing  they  can  live  in  village 
communities  where  schools  and  social  opportunities  are  available. 
They  will  not  tolerate  the  lonely  farm. 

A  large  percentage  of  immigrants  now  here  have  had  agricultural 
training,  and  prefer  living  on  farms.  Almost  invariably  they  resent 
the  individual  farm,  but  will  live  in  communites,  as  they  do  in 
Europe. 

We  have  had  no  very  complete  survey  of  rural  conditions  as  yet, 
but  what  has  been  discovered  of  causes  undermining  our  rural  life 
reveal  two  reasons  for  these  conditions:  Poor  marketing  facilities 
and  lack  of  educational  opportunity. 


582  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

If  farm  life  is  a  failure  under  present  conditions,  why  not  make 
conditions  what  they  should  be,  since  the  life  of  democracy  depends 
upon  the  upbuilding  of  rural  America  ? 

The  British  Government  made  an  exhaustive  study  of  this  sub- 
ject, and  is  determined  that  all  rural  communities  shall  be  equipped 
with  proper  housing,  the  social  amenities,  and  an  agricultural  in- 
structor. They  have  voted  funds  to  teach  people  cooperation,  recog- 
nizing that  as  the  basis  of  all  home  making  and  thrift. 

No  program  for  national  defense  is  practical  that  does  not  include 
the  settlement  of  our  vacant  agricultural  land  upon  business  prin- 
ciples. 

Agriculture  has  been  called  our  one  unorganized  business;  it  is 
susceptible  of  organization. 

The  land  business  needs  regulation,  as  surely  did  the  grain  busi- 
ness before  the  honest  grain  dealers  organized  to  exclude  the  bucket- 
shop  man. 

Mrs.  LUND.  The  National  Forward  to  the  Land  League  advises  the 
establishment  of  a  rural  colony  foundation,  its  funds  to  be  admin- 
istered by  such  a  board  as  directs  the  affairs  of  the  General  Educa- 
tion Board  of  the  Rockefeller  bequests.  This  foundation  should 
articulate  with  the  bureau  of  land  information  of  the  Forward  to  the 
Land  League,  and  the  officers  and  directors  of  the  league  should  be 
numbered  among  the  trustees  of  the  rural  colony  foundation.  We  ad- 
vise that  this  foundation,  instead  of  being  wholly  financed  by  indi- 
vidual philanthropists,  be  subscribed  to  by  them  and  the  subscription 
list  thrown  open  to  the  general  public  in  a  truly  democratic  way. 
Many  want  to  help  solve  this  national  problem. 

The  hearts  of  our  people  have  been  stirred  by  the  war  and  by  the 
suffering  from  unemployment.  They  will  be  glad,  indeed,  to  respond 
to  a  campaign  to  put  our  own  people  on  a  self-supporting  basis. 

There  will  be  ample  security  back  of  every  dollar  used  by  the 
foundation. 

We  advise  that  the  board  of  trustees  appoint  a  land  committee  for 
the  selection  of  suitable  tracts  of  land  on  which  will  be  created  rural 
colonies  built  according  to  the  standard  of  the  National  Forward-to- 
the-Land  League  and  garden  cities  for  housing  industrial  workers. 

The  standard  for  the  social  amenities  will  be  the  same  in  the  urban 
and  rural  communities.  Both  will  have  an  agricultural  instructor 
and  will  be  under  the  general  supervision  of  the  National  Forward- 
to-the-Land  League. 

There  will  be  a  separate  fund  for  the  two  classes  of  development 
work ;  contributors  may  choose  between  them. 

The  rural  colony  foundation  should  have  sums  available  for  the 
purchase  of  land  and  such  physical  equipment  as  appertains  to  real 
estate. 

There  should  be  a  loaning  fund  created  for  the  purpose  of  financ- 
ing cooperative  banking  associations  organized  and  controlled  of 
residents.  Such  funds  to  be  reloaned  by  the  cooperative  bank  thus 
organized  to  members  thereof.  Loans  to  be  made  only  for  the  pur- 
chase of  food,  implements,  stock,  seed,  fertilizers,  etc.  Such  equip- 
ment calls  for  what  is  known  as  short-term  credit. 

The  form  of  cooperative  credit  organization  for  this  class  of 
finance  is  recommended  by  Hon.  Myron  T.  Herrick  and  R.  Ingalls, 
in  their  book  called  Rural  Credit,  and  by  Leonard  G.  Robinson, 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  583 

president  of  the  Federal  farm-loan  bank,  Springfield,  Mass.,  and 
joint  author  with  A.  H.  Ham,  of  the  Sage  Foundation,  of  the  Credit 
Union  Primer,  and  is  known  as  the  Raiffeison  system  of  cooperative 
banking. 

Beneficent  investors  should  specify  which  division  of  work  in  the 
rural  colony  foundation  they  wish  their  funds  to  finance. 

There  will  be  a  separate  corporation  for  each  fund;  stock  will  be 
issued  by  each  with  a  limited  profit  specified.  Stock  in  this  founda- 
tion can  be  recommended  not  alone  because  it  finances  a  constructive 
method  of  helping  the  less  fortunate  to  help  themselves,  but  because 
it  is  a  sound  investment.  Every  share  of  stock  will  have  behind  it 
land  that  is  being  constantly  improved. 

Model  city  tenements  and  suburban  homes  have  been  financed  here 
and  abroad  and  have  paid  an  unfailing  dividend;  how  much  more 
will  model  rural  colonies  and  garden  homes  surely  succeed,  since  they 
represent  not  alone  a  model  dwelling  but  an  income-producing  plot 
of  land  as  well. 

This  fund  wTould  be  used  to  assist  the  local  capitalists  in  making 
up  the  funds  needed  for  the  colony,  50-50  basis,  perhaps  more.  The 
valuable  thing  is  to  have  the  local  business  men  get  enough  of  their 
own  money  in  the  colony  to  concern  themselves  with  its  management. 
If  bankers  or  other  contributors  to  the  rural  colony  foundations 
funds  know  that  local  men  are  in  it  and  will  attend  they  will  feel 
safe  in  investing. 

Such  a  fund  would  cooperate  with  individuals  and  corporations 
ready  to  standardize  their  colony  work  as  we  indicate. 

In  one  city  I  almost  put  the  thing  through  before  representatives 
of  the  Southern  Commercial  Congress  and  the  Southern  Settlement 
Development  Co.  came  and  stayed  four  days.  The  work  went  to 
pieces.  How  can  one  prove  their  plan  with  such  interference  ?  I  had 
spoken  to  every  commercial  organization,  the  rotary  club  twice,  and 
the  commercial  club,  and  all  the  churches  and  women's  organiza- 
tions, and  all  appointed  committees  to  help  put  a  colony  in  their 
back  country.  The  church  women  and  the  club  women  were  ready 
to  help  in  the  sale  of  stock  at  this  limited  profit  as  a  community 
interest  to  get  this  thing  across. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Do  you  think  that  this  bill,  if  passed,  will  stay  the 
success  of  your  private  scheme  ? 

Mrs.  LUXD.  Ko;  I  do  not,  except  it  would  probably  hold  it  back 
somewhat  because  a  lot  of  people  want  quick  money  in  their  State. 
All  these  land  interests  and  commercial  colonization  companies  that 
have  been  working  to  defeat  in y  work  are  boosting  this  Lane-Mondell 
bill  because  they  know  it  is  going  to  bring  a  torrent  of  money  into 
their  own  States  for  development  work.  You  know  how  everybody 
goes  after  money  from  Washington.  You  know  that  Mr.  Lane  did 
not  try  to  pass  his  bill  until  he  sent  his  people  out  into  every  one 
of  your  States  and  drummed  up  a  lot  of  interest  in  it  because  your 
States  and  your  constituents  want  that  money,  that  easy  money, 
coming  back  there  for  development.  Of  course,  he  did  not  try  to 
pass  the  bill  until  he  had  done  that. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  And  you  can  say  with  great  confidence  that  whether 
this  bill  passes  or  not  }-ou  think  you  will  have  started  within  90  days 
a  plan  to  cover  this  whole  question  adequately  without  the  aid  of  this 
bill? 


584  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mrs.  LUND.  If  a  bill  was  passed  that  would  in  any  way  show  co- 
operation 'by  the  Government  with  what  we  are  doing,  we  would  get 
money  in  90  days,  but  I  would  not  attempt  to  say  that  in  90  days 
we  could  attempt  to  put  any  soldiers  on  the  land  if  the  Government 
was  going  to  do  it.  What  we  would  have  to  do  then  would  be  to 
work  slowly  by  your  side  to  show  that  under  private  initiative 
something  could  be  done,  and  then  reach  out  into  the  housing  ques- 
tion, etc. 

But,  gentlemen,  please  believe  me  when  I  say  I  have  refused  too 
many  opportunities  to  align  my  work  with  powerful  interests  and 
put  me  on  a  profitable  and  successful  basis  for  me  to  be  under  any 
question  as  to  my  personal  interest  in  this  matter;  it  is  the  menace  of 
State  socialism  1  oppose,  no  matter  what  effect  it  has  on  giving  farms 
to  soldiers. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Oh,  no  one  has  suggested  that. 

Mrs.  LUND.  And  I  am  going  to  say  now  that  if  this  does  not  enter 
into  the  question,  I  could  jump  in  and  help  on  this  Mondell  bill. 
Why  not  ?  I  do  not  know  Mr.  Mondell  very  well,  but  Senator  Smoot 
has  always  been  one  of  the  best  friends  of  my  work  and  promised  to 
go  before  the  committee  on  the  Curtis  bill  to  tell  what  the  Mormons 
have  done  in  this  matter.  I  would  like  nothing  better  than  to  help 
him,  but  this  building  up  of  bureaus  and  State  socialism  I  am 
afraid  of;  I  must  oppose  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mrs.  Lund,  in  this  article  by  Senator  Harding 
in  Sea  Power,  referring  to  lands  available,  you  say,  "  These  are 
obtainable  in  all  sections  of  the  country,  within  50  miles  of  Xew 
York,  Cleveland,  St.  Louis,  New  Orleans,  or  Washington.  There 
are  30,000,000  acres  of  unused  land  in  New  England ;  35,000.000  in 
the  Middle  States,"  and  so  on.  Where  did  you  get  those  figures  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  .  Those  figures  were  taken  from  a  bulletin  issued  by  the 
Department  of  Commerce. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  you  furnished  them  to  the  Senator  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  did;  and  it  might  interest  you  to  know  that  just 
about  three  months  ago  I  went  up  to  Boston  to  arrange  about  land 
in  Massachusetts,  and  it  would  interest  you  to  know  what  private 
capital  was  willing  to  do  about  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  are  available  lands  in  Massachusetts? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Plenty  of  available  lands  in  Massachusetts. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  heard  Mr.  Wood's  testimony  here  yesterday, 
did  you  not  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  think  he  was  mistaken. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  was  against  the  colonization  plan  and  said 
that  there  were  no  lands  available  in  his  section  of  the  country. 
Do  vou  agree  with  him  on  that  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  There  is  not  as  much  land  available  in  those  thickly 
settled  districts,  but  there  are  certain  tracts.  For  instance,  there  is 
plenty  of  land  in  New  Jersey,  New  England,  and  my  information 
about  Indiana  is  restricted  to  a  statement  made  by  one  of  the  men 
from  the  Reclamation  Service,  that  they  knew  there  were  certain 
tracts  of  land  available  to  establish  at  least  one  or  two  of  these  colo- 
nies. I  do  not  know  Indiana,  or  Ohio,  but  I  do  know  Michigan, 
Illinois,  Wisconsin,  and  I  know  all  the  Western  country  and  the 
Northwestern  and  the  South,  and  New  England.  I  have  personal 
knowledge  of  all  those  sections. 


M O.MRS    FOR   SOLDIERS.  585 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  do  not  agree  with  Mr.  Wood  as  to  these 
colonies  all  being  a  failure? 

Mrs.  LUND.  There  is  a  word  to  be  said  about  those  colonies.  I  have 
prepared  a  very  brief  outline  of  the  colonization  work  in  the  United 
States.  It  really  might  be  worth  your  while  to  take  an  hour  some 
morning  and  let  me  go  over  them  with  you.  As  to  the  matter  of 
community  organization,  if  you  go  out  in  any  county  where  there 
are  farmers  you  will  find  men  from  the  extension  department  trying 
to  organize  all  those  farmers  and  make  them  into  a  cooperative 
organization  or  a  community  organization  in  order  to  have  better 
schools,  better  roads,  better  transportation  and  better  credit,  etc. 
Now,  that  is  a  community,  it  makes  no  difference  how  large  the 
farming  unit  is.  As  soon  as  it  becomes  an  organized  community 
and  has  its  little  meetings  it  then  becomes  a  community. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  are  doing  that  all  over  the  West,  in  Cali- 
fornia, Oregon,  and  Washington? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes;  the  extension  service  through  our  State  agri- 
cultural colleges  is  trying  to  put  that  idea  across  in  every  State, 
and,  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  say  that  the  plan  upon  which  they  are 
based  was  worked  out  by  Dr.  Carver,  who  is  at  the  head  of  the 
rural  organization  work  in  the  Forward  to  Land  League. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  are  not  called  colonies  or  colonization 
schemes,  but  in  fact  that  is  just  what  they  are  doing. 

Mrs.  LUND.  That  is  just  what  they  are  trying  to  do  and  there  will 
never  be  success  in  farming  until  we  do  organize,  because  the  small 
farmer  has  not  capital  enough  to  compete  with  the  bonanza  farmer 
unless  he  cooperates  with  his  neighbors  and  they  buy  together  and 
sell  together.  It  is  a  matter  of  treating  their  combined  acreage  as  a 
business  unit  the  cooperation  of  the  group.  Individual  energy  and 
individual  initiative,  and  voluntary  cooperation  and,  gentlemen, 
whenever  we  do  anything  to  impair  that  in  this  country,  we  have  un- 
dermined that  thing  which  makes  us  Americans  and  we  are  likely 
to  become  a  suburb  of  Berlin. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mrs.  Lund,  what  were  the  total  contributions  con- 
tributed by  the  various  parties  for  your  purposes  and  other  purposes 
in  Washington? 

Mrs.  LUND.  There  is  no  money  contributed  except  just  to  cover 
my  bare  living  expenses. 


this 

fered  with.  In  the  beginning  my  magazine  was  to  pay  for  the  or- 
ganization work,  I  planned  to  do  this  work  without  any  expense  to 
anybody,  but  when  my  magazine  was  wrecked  that  left  me  without 
funds  for  organization:  Many  times  I  have  had  money  arranged  for 
and  had  it  upset. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  know  whether  a  man  by  the  name  of  Mr. 
Bolton  got  any  of  those  funds  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Mr.  Bolton? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  know  a  Mr.  Bolton  living  in  the  city  of 
Washington  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes ;  I  do. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  he  got  out  some 
press  notices 


586  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mrs.  LUND  (interposing).  Yes;  he  wrote  the  newspaper  stories 
for  me. 

The  CHAIRMAN  (continuing).  That  seemed  to  have  come  from  the 
Grange  and  which  we  all  thought  came  from  the  grange. 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Was  he  paid  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  paid  Mr.  Bolton. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  pay  him  for  getting  out  those  press, 
notices? 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  paid  him,  and  it  came  out  of  my  living  this  month. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  may  not  understand  me.  Did  you  pay  Mr. 
Bolton  for  getting  out  those  press  notices  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  paid  Mr.  Bolton  for  writing  the  stories. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  For  writing  those  stories  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  were  three  different  press  notices  sent  out. 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Consisting  of  about  nine  pages. 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  do  not  remember  the  number  of  pages. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  much  was  Mr.  Bolton  paid  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  paid  Mr.  Bolton  $50  for  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  his  name  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  think  it  is  R.  L.  Bolton.  It  is  R.  something.  He 
is  a  stranger  to  me. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  think  it  is  R.  L.  Bolton? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  his  address? 

Mrs.  LUND.  The  Press  Club  is  all  the  address  I  have. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  he  is  a  stranger  to  you,  how  did  you  happen 
to  secure  his  services? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Because  Mr.  Dupre  here  in  the  city  has  very  often 
written  stories  for  me.  and  I  sent  to  Duprc  to  write  this  grange 
story  and  asked  him  if  he  would  take  the  testimony  Mr.  Atkeson 
would  give  before  you,  when  I  knew  Mr.  Atkeson  was  coming  before 
the  committee — I  had  known  wrhat  the  resolution  passed  by  the 
National  Grange  at  the  Syracuse  meeting  was,  and  I  naturally  "knew 
that  Mr.  Atkeson  would  take  the  grange  point  of  view  with  regard 
to  it.  I  wanted  that  publicity  gotten  out  so  that  the  people  in  Con- 
gress would  know  that  the  grange  was  against  this  thing.  The 
grange  told  me  that  they  could  not  get  their  stuff  printed  in  city 
papers;  that  is,  they  have  a  publicity  bureau  up  at  the  grange  fur- 
nishing press  matter  to  agricultural' papers,  and  they  have  told  me 
in  times  past — it  was  not  told  me  with  regard  to  this  particular 
thing — but  they  have  told  me  before  that  they  have  trouble  getting 
their  stuff  published  by  city  papers. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Was  this  some  of  the  money  which  Senator  Weeks 
and  Senator  Harding  contributed  that  was  paid  him? 

Mrs.  LUND.  It  was  out  of  my  little  living  fund.  They  did  not 
know  how  I  was  going  to  use  it.  May  I  make  the  statement  that 
neither  of  the  Senators  knew  that  I  was  using  it  for  other  than  my 
expenses?  They  knew  I  did  not  have  more  than  enough,  and  I  had 
to  borrow  money  this  month  to  make  that  up. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  did  not  report  it  to  them? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  587 

Mrs.  LUND.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  do  not  give  them  any  itemized  statement? 
Mrs.  Lrxn.  No;  because  they  only  give  me  enough  to  cover  my 
living  expenses. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  state  Mr.  Bolton's  address? 
Mrs.  LUND.  The  Press  Club,  I  think  I  gave  you. 
The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  his  business? 


is  a  fellow  up  at  the  club  named  Bolton,  and  I  will  send  him  over  if 
I  can  get  him."  So  pretty  soon  Bolton  telephoned  me  and  came  over 
to  see  me  and  wrote  those  stories,  and,  gentlemen,  I  had  had  such 
experiences  with  the  labor  committee  and  the  committee  on  the  Curtis 
bill  in  keeping  me  from  making  any  statement  that  I  expected  the 
same  treatment  whenever  the  administration  is  interested.  I  have 
no  grudge  against  any  committee,  but  I  expected  the  State  Socialists 
in  the  administration  to  shut  out  from  hearings  those  opposed  to 
them.  The  stories  that  Mr.  Bolton  wrote,  as  I  said,  he  made  up  from 
the  record  which  he  saw  of  the  testimony  given  by  Mr.  Atkeson. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  he  write  them  solely  from  that  written  testi- 
mony ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  not  from  any  suggestions  coming  from  you? 

Mrs.  LUND.  No;  he  wrote  those  stories  without  any  statements 
from  me. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Who  distributed  them  around  the  House  Office 
Building? 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  did  or  had  it  done. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Mr.  Chairman,  is  that  the  syndicated  newspaper  arti- 
cle which  represented  that  Mr.  Atkeson  had  not  received  any  atten- 
tion from  the  committee  and  that  he  was  shut  off  before  he  had  a 
hearing? 

The 'CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  and  they  are  the  articles  which  Mr.  Atkeson 
repudiated  and  resented.  Did  you  tell  Mr.  Bolton,  Mrs.  Lund,  that 
Mr.  Atkeson  had  not  received  a  full  hearing  here  and  was  treated  in 
a  very  bad  way  by  the  committee? 

Mrs.  LUND.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Where  did  Mr.  Bolton  get  that  idea? 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  do  not  know,  unless  it  was  in  interviewing  Mr.  Atke- 
son about  it.  I  do  not  know  how  he  got  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr,  Atkeson  came  on  here  and  repudiated  that. 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  did  not  attend  the  hearings,  but  my  own  experience 
before  in  trying  to  get  before  committees  with  any  adverse  state- 
ment has  been  such  that  I  expected  that  feeling  here.  I  did  not 
know,  as  I  do  now.  that  you  are  willing  to  listen  to  opposition. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  felt,  then,  that  you  were  justified  in  telling 
Mr.  Bolton  that  Mr.  Atkeson  had  not  had  a  fair  hearing? 

Mrs.  LUND.  No;  I  did  not  tell  him  that.  Mr.  Bolton  may  have 
gotten  that  impression  at  the  hearing.  I  did  not  attend  the  hearing. 
He  wrote  those  stories  himself.  I  have  never  sent  out  any  pub- 
licity with  a  truculent  note  or  a  critical  note  in  it  before. 

I  'do  not  like  it,  but  inasmuch  as  the  Grange  say  that  they  can 
not  get  their  stuff  printed,  I  thought  perhaps  it  might  be  well  to 


588  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

leave  that  truculency  in  this  time.  It  might  make  it  carry.  That 
was  all.  I  confess  I  did  not  think  of  there  being  anything  in  it 
that  would  cause  any  special  resentment  from  the  committee,  and  I 
am  ready  to  offer  apology  to  the  committee  that  the  article  should 
have  contained  that  special  "  slam,"  now  you  tell  me  it  is  not  true, 
I  should,  perhaps,  have  questioned  or  inquired  more  closely,  or  should 
have  cut  it  out,  because  it  would  have  been  better  omitted  probably. 
But  you  see,  gentlemen,  I  thought  that  you  probably  had  been 
prejudiced  against  hearing  any  opposition.  I  know  the  other  com- 
mittees had  been  on  the  Grosser  bill  or  the  Curtis  bill.  The  door 
was  shut  on  any  opposition  hearing.  That  is  why. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Mrs.  Lund,  this  committee  has  granted  almost  three 
times  as  much  time  to  the  opponents  of  the  bill  as  they  have  to 
those  who  favor  the  bill. 

Mr.  LUND.  I  did  not  know,  and  that  had  not  been  my  experience. 
I  have  had  a  lot  to  contend  with  with  these  same  Socialists  over  here. 
Of  course,  I  did  not  blame  you.  I  was  a  stranger  to  you  and  I 
simply  thought  you  had  been  prejudiced  against  hearing  any  opposi- 
tion, and  thought  that  this  man,  Mr.  Mead,  knew  all  about  it.  The 
fact  of  the  matter  is  the  three  people  who  have  been  longest  in  this 
work  and  know  most  about  it  and  have  made  the  most  sacrifices  for 
it  and  the  longest  study  of  it,  two  of  them,  or  all  three  of  us,  really, 
come  from  California — George  H.  Maxwell  and  William  E.  Smythe, 
who  have  worked  in  California  for  years,  made  the  first  demonstra- 
tion of  community  organization.  They  have  not  had  sufficient 
money,  but  if  they  had  State  money  to  draw  from  we  would  not 
be  hearing  so  much  about  the  Mead  plan—- 
The CHAIRMAN  (interposing).  You  have  referred  to  the  Curtis  bill, 
and  I  want  to  read  this  paragraph  from  the  preamble  of  that  bill : 

Whereas  it  is  a  solemn  obligation  of  the  Republic  in  this  crisis  "  to  care  for 
him  who  hath  borne  the  battle  and  for  his  widow  and  orphans."  ' 

You  think  that  is  an  obligation  resting  upon  the  Government? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes,  sir ;  I  do  think  so. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  want  the  soldier  completely  guaranteed 
through  the  ownership  of  a  farm  home? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yet  you  do  not  think  that  the  Government  should 
supply  that  home  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  As  you  will  see  in  that  bill,  I  propose  to  use  the  un- 
expended immigration  fund,  amounting  to  $9.000,000,  to  make  a 
survey  of  the  situation.  You  can  not  hope  to  get  that  information 
across  this  table  in  a  few  weeks,  no  matter  how  hard  you  try. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  On  page  2  of  the  bill,  referring  to  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  board,  it  is  provided — 

Whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  develop  a  practical  standard  for  rural  colonies, 
and  to  establish  such  for  the  dependent  families  of  the  soldiers  of  the  United 
States. 

Do  you  mean  for  the  Government  to  do  that? 

Mrs.  LUND.  You  see,  I  knew  that  they  had  the  Grosser  bill,  and  I 
knew  that  they  would  take  the  soldier  settlement  bill  and  make  use 
of  that  patriotic  lever  to  get  this  sort  of  measure  started.  I  s;iid, 
"  You  must  have  something  for  the  Government  to  do,  and  how  little 
can  we  make  that  ? "  Here  is  what  we  proposed :  "  To  develop  a 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  589 

practical  standard  for  rural  colonies  and  to  establish  such  for  the 
dependent  families  of  the  soldiers  of  the  United  States."  The  Gov- 
ernment would  work  out  the  proper  standard,  and  then  our  business 
men  of  the  country  would  carry  it  out.  Do  you  see  how  well  it 
would  work? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  there  is  a  little  inconsistency  between  your 
position  before  the  committee  and  this  wording  of  the  Curtis  bill. 

Mrs.  LUND.  You  can  not  possibly  put  all  that  you  think  into  a 
bill,  and  I  am  trying  to  tell  you  what  I  want  in  the  bill.  I  say  that 
because  that  bill  was  simply  an  entering  wedge  to  be  followed  by  the 
real  broad  after-legislation.  In  order  to  provide  for  a  thorough 
study  by  a  commission,  we  would  need  all  of  those  things. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  wanted  to  use  the  $9,000,000  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  You  can  call  it  that,  but  suppose  we  had  that 
$9,000,000  ?  We  wanted  to  use  it  through  a  commission  in  developing 
a  practical  standard  for  rural  colonies  and  establishing  the  de- 
pendent families  of  soldiers  upon  them.  We  would  show  them  the 
way  to  do  it,  and  we  do  think  that  that  is  an  obligation  of  the 
country.  That  is  plainly  stated,  with  none  of  the  camouflage  methods 
that  appear  in  this  Lane-Mondell  bill. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Let  me  ask  you  another  question:  In  this  article 
by  Senator  Harding  entitled  "  Rooting  Valor  in  American  Soil "  the 
Senator  makes  this  statement : 

It  is  such  homes  that  the  United  States  should  have  had  ready  for  occu- 
pancy by  its  soldiers  and  sailors  at  the  time  of  their  return. 

Now,  the  implication  in  this  article  seems  to  be  that  the  United 
States  should  get  these  homes  ready. 

Mrs.  LUND.  You  see,  what  I  thought  was  this,  and  the  Senator  you 
mention  agreed  with  me,  that  you  should  have  a  commission  ap- 
pointed to  deal  with  this  situation,  and  that  the  commission  should 
first  be  instructed  to  get  out  propaganda  and  to  send  lecturers  and 
organizers  into  the  business  districts  and  tell  them  how  to  mobilize 
capital  and  credit  so  as  to  get  ready  for  the  soldiers.  We  think 
that  that  is  the  logical  function  of  the  Government — that  is,  to  assist 
business  in  the  way  that  it  does  assist  through  the  Department  of 
Commerce  and  the  ^Department  of  Agriculture. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Let  me  get  this  clear:  Do  you  mean  to  say  that 
when  this  article  was  written  containing  this  statement,  "  It  is  such 
homes  that  the  United  States  should  have  had  ready  for  occupancy 
by  its  sailors  and  soldiers  at  the  time  of  their  return,"  that  the 
United  States  should  have  had  ready  for  occupancy  these  homes  or 
that  some  private  individuals  should  have  had  them  ready  for  occu- 
pancy ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  As  I  have  said  to  you,  the  United  States  should  take 
that  initiative  through  that  commission.  They  should  get  this  work 
started  for  them,  and  if  we  had  had  the  $9,000,000  provided  for  in 
the  Curtis  bill,  we  would  have  been  ready,  because  we  would  have 
used  that  $9.000,000  in  getting  the  capital  and  credit  of  the  United 
States  mobilized  for  this  work.  There  is  quite  a  difference  between 
$9,000,000  and  $500,000.000.  provided  in  the  Mondell  bill. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  is  the  positive  statement  that  the  United 
States  should  have  had  such  homes  ready  for  occupancy  by  sailors 
and  soldiers  at  the  time  of  their  return. 


590  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

Mrs.  LUND.  That  may  have  been  the  statement  that  Senator  Hard- 
ing made. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  that  your  statement  or  Senator  Harding's  state- 
ment? 

Mrs.  LUND.  It  is  Senator  Harding's  statement. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Did  you  prepare  the  manuscript  of  that  statement 
and  arrange  for  its  publication?  Did  you  prepare  the  statement 
and  have  Senator  Harding  revise  it? 

Mrs.  LUND.  All  of  those  things  I  get  out  are  reports  of  the  people 
who  sign  them.  They  are  partly  written  by  them. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Is  the  composition  of  Senator  Harding's  article  yours 
or  his? 

Mrs.  LUND.  It  is  his,  although  a  part  of  it  is  made  up  from  my 
papers. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Is  the  actual  phraseology  taken  from  your  paper? 

Mrs.  LUND.  A  good  deal  of  it,  or  some  of  it,  is  from  the  paper. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Did  you  arrange  for  its  publication? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  You  made  all  the  arrangements  for  having  it  pub- 
lished? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MATS.  Referring  to  that  particular  expression  read  by  the 
chairman,  that  the  United  States  should  have  had  such  homes  ready 
for  occupancy  by  the  soldiers  and  sailors  at  the  time  of  their  re- 
turn  

Mrs.  LUND  (interposing).  My  understanding  is  that  that  should 
have  been  qualified,  as  I  have  stated  here.  Senator  Harding  talked 
to  me  about  the  proposed  legislation,  and  in  conferences  we  had  dis- 
cussed this  and  considered  how  it  should  be  done.  I  think  I  can  say 
that  Senator  Harding  would  have  qualified  that.  That  statement  was 
an  article,  and  not  a  legal  brief.  It  simply  said  that  we  were  not 
ready,  and  that  the  Government  was  not  ready.  We  had  no  commis- 
sions appointed  on  reconstruction,  as  other  countries  had. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Following  that  statement,  after  deploring  the  fail- 
ure of  the  Government  to  do  anything,  this  statement  occurs : 

Now,  the  duty  of  the  Government  is  to  pull  this  situation  together  as  best  it 
can  and  save  what  it  can  out  of  the  wreck  of  neglected  opportunity.  An  ideal 
situation  existed  with  relation  to  returning  sailors  and  soldiers. 

Mrs.  LUND.  That  is  what  we  proposed  to  do. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  really  wanted  the  Government  to  do  some- 
thing? 

Mrs.  LUND.  We  really  did.  We  will  have  a  method  wrorked  out 
this  week,  but  I  hope  a  provision  that  will  meet  our  ideas  may  come 
out  of  this  committee,  we  all  want  the  committee  to  have  the  credit 
for  anything  that  may  be  done  to  put  soldiers  on  farms. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Who  will  introduce  that  bill? 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  would  prefer  for  the  committee  to  bring  out  the  de- 
tails of  the  bill.  We  will  make  the  suggestions  and  let  you  do  what 
you  please  with  it.  You  should  have  the  first  chance  at  it.  I  fixed 
up  a  compromise  bill,  if  we  must  have  the  Government  do  it?  I  do 
not  think  we  need  to  have  the  Government  do  this.  I  think  this  bill 
better  than  the  Mondell  bill.  May  I  read  this  bill  or  leave  it  with  you 
for  any  amendment  you  may  want  to  work  out  in  connection  with  it  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  may  incorporate  the  bill  in  the  record. 


HOMES   FOB  SOLDIERS.  591 

That  to  provide  rural  homes  for  those  who  served  with  the  military  or  naval 
forces  of  the  United  States  during  the  war  between  the  United  States  and  her 
allies,  and  Germany  and  her  allies,  and  who  have  been  honorably  separated  or 
discharged  therefrom  or  placed  in  the  Regular  Army  Reserve,  and  former  Amer- 
ican citizens  who  served  with  and  were  honorably  separated  or  discharged 
from  the  military  or  naval  forces  of  any  of  the  nations  allied  against  the  Cen- 
tral Powers,  and  who  have  been  repatriated,  or  the  widows  or  orphans  of  such 
persons,  all  of  whom  are  hereinafter  referred  to  as  soldiers,  there  is  hereby 
established  a  fund  in  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  to  be  known  as  the 
soldiers'  relief  fund,  to  be  administered  by  a  commission  of  five  members  not 
now  holding  office,  to  be  appointed  by  Congress  in  such  manner  as  Congress 
may  determine,  and  said  commission  is  hereby  authorized  to  use  said  fund  to 
carry  out  the  purposes  of  this  act. 

SEC.  2.  That  said  commission  may  acquire  by  gift,  purchase,  deed  in  trust, 
or  otherwise,  the  necessary  lands  for  soldier  settlement  projects  and  may  with- 
draw, utilize,  and  dispose  of  by  contract  and  deed,  public  lands  suitable  for 
such  purpose;  provided,  however,  that  no  lands  shall  be  acquired  unless  the 
price  to  be  paid  and  the  conditions  under  which  they  are  acquired  shall  first 
be  approved,  (a)  by  a  representative  of  the  governor  of  the  State  in  which  the 
lands  are  located,  and  (b)  by  an  appraiser  designated  by  the  Federal  Farm 
Loan  Board,  and  (c)  by  the  commission. 

SEC.  3.  The  commission  is  authorized  to  engage  in  such  undertaking  and  do 
such  work  as  it  deems  necessary  for  the  proper  and  permanent  development 
and  equipment  of  the  farms  in  jsuch  projects,  and  in  such  undertakings  and 
work  in  reference  thereto,  preference  shall  be  given  to  the  employment  of 
soldiers. 

The  commission  shall  establish  a  standard  for  such  rural  or  farm  settlements 
under  such  rules  and  regulations  as  it  may  prescribe.  And  in  the  etablishnient 
and  operation  of  such  standard  settlements  the  commission  may  consult  and 
cooperate  with  sucn  agencies  as  it  deems  advisable.  And  the  Commission  is 
authorized  to  set  aside  for  schools,  churches,  community  centers,  and  for  other 
public  purposes  such  lands  as  it  deems  necessary. 

Soldier  applicants  for  such  farms  must  agree  to  live  upon  the  same  and  must 
enter  into  such  contracts  and  agreements  with  the  commission  in  reference  to 
the  payment  for  such  farms  and  for  the  operation  of  the  same  and  in  reference 
to  all  other  matters  in  relation  to  such  farms  as  the  commission  shall  prescribe. 

And  the  commission  is  authorized  to  assist,  upon  such  terms  and  conditions 
as  it  may  deem  advisable,  any  soldier  who  has  had  experience  in  farming  and 
who  is  competent  to  conduct  a  farm,  to  acquire  a  farm  in  any  part  of  the 
United  States. 

SEC.  4.  That  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  into  effect  the  provisions  of  this 
act,  the  sum  of  $200,000,000  is  hereby  authorized  to  be  appropriated,  and  of 
this  sum  the  commission  is  authorized  to  expend  any  amount  not  to  exceed 
$250,000  in  such  manner  as  it  may  deem  advisable  in  securing  the  cooperation 
and  assistance  of  State  commercial  organizations  and  their  interested  bodies 
throughout  the  United  States. 

There  are  several  reasons  why  a  commission  could  better  deal  with 
the  land  settlement  subject  than  a  department  of  the  Government. 

First,  there  is  inevitably  jealousy  between  the  Department  of 
Agriculture,  Labor,  and  the  Interior.  All  would  like  this  big  work 
done  with  their  own  machinery.  A  commission  could,  therefore, 
draw  greater  cooperation  from  all  of  them  than  either  from  the 
others. 

Furthermore,  a  commission  would  probably  select  experts  on  the 
several  subjects  connected  with  land  settlement,  and  these  men  would 
serve  continuously  irrespective  of  political  changes.  I  feel  that  Sec- 
retary Lane's  preference  for  having  the  Government  to  do  all  of  this 
work  has  helped  to  keep  much  good  from  being  done  during  the  past 
seven  years  of  his  incumbency. 

When  I  first  brought  my  plans  to  the  attention  of  Secretary  Lane, 
and  your  chairman  has  just  indicated  that  the  plans  are  identical, 
save  that  I  want  private  enterprise  to  develop  them,  and  Secretary 
133319 — 19 38 


592  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Lane  wants  Government  action,  Mr.  Newell,  then  Director  of  Recla- 
mation, became  a  member  of  my  advisory  board,  and  both  he  and 
Mr.  Blanchard  were  very  anxious  for  me  to  develop  some  part  of  my 
plans  in  the  Department  of  the  Interior  rather  than  in  the  Labor 
Department. 

Both  of  these  men  urged  Secretary  Lane  to  see  me  and  cooperate. 
They  promised  their  cooperation.  But  when  Mr.  Newell  resigned 
and  Mr.  Davis  took  his  place,  Mr.  Blanchard  was  obliged  to  withdraw 
all  promise  of  cooperation.  I  have  never  met  Mr.  Davis. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Do  you  understand  that  there  is  any  suspicion  of 
socialism  proposed  in  the  project  here,  as  set  forth  in  the  Mondell 
bill? 

Mrs.  LUND.  The  Grosser  bill  was  a  Socialist  bill.  Both  are  State 
socialism — that  is,  the  Government  is  to  go  into  the  colonization 
business  and  act  as  employer.  State  socialism  or  Government  own- 
ership is  a  far  greater  menace  than  direct  socialism,  because  State 
socialism  is  but  an  extension  of  capitalism,  and  the  Socialists  admit 
that.  Here  is  an  editorial  that  I  clipped  from  the  New  York  Call 
the  other  day,  and  it  W7ill  take  only  two  minutes  to  read  it : 

GOVERNMENT  OWNEKSHIP. 

We  are  inclined  to  agree  with  the  National  City  Bank  circular  for  June 
when  it  asserts  that  workingrnen  are  in  error  in  assuming  that  Government 
ownership  of  industry  necessarily  implies  any  gains  for  them.  Aside  from 
the  theoretical  aspect  of  the  question,  there  are  the  facts  that  are  apparent 
to  all.  The  quasi  public  ownership  of  telegraphs  under  the  administration 
of  Postmaster  Burleson,  his  conduct  of  the  post  office  itself,  indicates  that 
the  Government  owned  or  managed  enterprise  can  become  more  exploitive  than 
even  the  privately  owned  enterprise. 

Ownership  of  any  kind  can  not  eliminate  the  evils  of  capitalism  until  the 
workers  themselves  have  mastery  of  their  industrial  life.  This  mastery 
carries  with  it  a  form  of  ownership  that  is  not  only  social,  but  a  form  of  man- 
agement and  operation  controlled  by  all  those  who  contribute  useful  labor. 
This  is  the  esseiice  of  industrial  democracy,  of  labor  democracy.  State-owned 
industry  is  generally  managed  from  the  same  point  of  view  that  privately 
owned  industry  is.  That  is,  for  cheap  production  and  cheap  service,  which 
in  turn  are  secured  by  cheap  labor.  Another  reason,  especially  in  the  case 
of  State-owned  railways  and  transport  facilities,  is  to  afford  an  efficient  ally 
for  military  purposes.  It  is  significant  that  every  nation  with  such  railways 
that  entered  the  war  took  over  its  transportation  systems. 

Still  another  reason  why  the  management  and  policies  of  State-owned  and 
privately  owned  services  are  the  same  is  that  politicians  of  capitalist  parties 
are  selected  as  administrative  heads  of  State-owned  services.  They  can  no 
more  avoid  applying  the  practices  and  methods  of  the  capitalist  order  they 
represent  than  the  capitalist  owners  themselves.  So  wedded  are  they  to  these 
practices  that  such  administrators  often  permit  capitalist  owners  and  con- 
tractors to  attach  themselves  in  some  way  to  public  services  as  leeches  who 
bleed  these  services  for  all  they  are  worth. 

The  National  City  Bank  sees  what  the  Socialist  sees,  though  it  is  not  quite 
so  frank  as  to  details.  We  see  what  it  sees,  and  more,  and  have  nothing  to 
lose  by  pointing  it  out. 

That  editorial  contains  the  Socialist  point  of  view  as  against 
State  socialism.  They  regard  it  as  an  extension  of  capitalism  and 
the  building  up  of  a  bureaucracy.  Some  Socialist  radicals  want 
the  Government  to  do  things;  they  advise  the  Government  to  take 
them  over,  thinking  that  they  will  get  them  away  from  the  Govern- 
ment and  run  them  themselves.  However,  most  of  them  think  that  it- 
will  result  in  the  intrenchment  of  capital  at  Washington  and  the 
centralization  of  vast  powers  in  the  bureaus,  so  that  it  will  be  really 


HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS.  593 

capitalistic  control.  That  is  the  fear  that  is  expressed  by  the  Social- 
ist organs  as  well  as  by  the  most  conservative  business  men. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  was  an  article  that  appeared  in  a  magazine 
within  the  last  few  months  by  Senator  Curtis.  Do  you  know  about 
that  article  ? 

Mrs  LUND.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  assist  in  the  publication  of  it? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Yes,  sir;  it  appeared  in  Munsey's  for  October. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Has  Senator  Harding  introduced  a  bill  on  this 
subject  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  He  has  not.  Senator  Harding  says  that  whatever  is 
done  should  be  done  by  Mr.  Mondell  and  Senator  Smoot,  and  that 
whatever  is  done  on  the  soldier  settlement  proposition  should  come 
out  of  the  committees.  We  want  to  help  you  out,  because  we  have 
given  a  lot  of  time  and  study  to  it.  There  will  be  no  bill  introduced 
by  anybody  else  if  we  can  get  you  to  cover  these  points  in  your 
legislation.  If  you  are  not  influenced  by  our  judgment,  we  will  have 
a  bill  introduced. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  had  a  little  over  one  hour  and  a  half. 
Do  you  feel  that  you  have  had  a  full  and  fair  hearing? 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  am  very  much  pleased  with  what  you  have  accorded 
in  time  and  courtesy.  May  I  make  clear  in  your  record  before  I  go 
that  this  bill  that  I  have  given  to  you  is  my  idea  of  a  compromise.  It 
is  not  my  idea  of  what  would  be  the  best  thing.  My  idea  of  what 
would  be  the  best  thing  would  be  to  have  a  commission  appointed  to 
concern  itself  with  research  and  information,  which  should  be  dis- 
tributed through  newspaper,  magazine,  moving  picture,  and  lecture 
platform  publicity.  The  commission  should  study  the  matter  of 
farm  settlements,  'industrial  housing,  and  cooperation,  because  with- 
out cooperation  to  show  how  credit  may  be  mobilized  for  this  work 
we  can  not  do  any  of  these  things. 

I  will  be  very  glad  to  give  you  a  list  of  the  people  who  I  wanted 
to  have  heard.  Mr.  Harold  Foight,  director  of  the  rural  schools  of 
the  Bureau  of  Education,  was  to  give  an  illustrated  lecture  and  show 
what  they  have  done  in  Denmark  and  the  United  States  in  the 
schools. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mrs.  Lund,  I  find  that  we  must  conclude  these 
hearings.  We  have  devoted  fully  two  weeks  to  the  hearings,  and  I 
do  not  think  there  is  any  diversity  of  sentiment  in  the  committee  as 
to  the  feasibility  of  the  community  plan.  Of  course,  others  think 
that  it  should  be  enlarged  to  include  the  segregated  units.  However, 
I  do  not  think  it  is  necessary  to  go  into  that  general  proposition. 

Are  you  aware  that  Mr.  Atkeson  came  before  the  committee  and 
repudiated  the  suggestion  that  he  had  been  treated  unfairly  ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  If  you  read  the  newspaper  article  written  by  a  man 
named  Hall  am,  who  puts  things  on  the  press  table,  in  regard  to  this 
matter 

The  CHAIRMAN  (interposing).  Just  a  moment,  please.  Do  you 
know  that  Mr.  Atkeson  came  before  the  committee  and  repudiated 
the  insinuation  or  implication  of  unfair  treatment  or  antagonism 
toward  him? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Then,  if  he  did  he  must  know  what  he  is  talking  about. 


594  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  said  he  resented  it. 

Mrs.  LUND.  Well,  I  do  not  know • 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  not  feel  that  you  are  under  an  obligation 
to  set  the  committee  right,  you  having  set  in  action  the  other  pub- 
licity ? 

Mrs.  LUND.  Is  there  anything  I  need  to  do,  if  Mr.  Atkeson  has 
made  that — corrected  the  statement  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  in  his  testimony.  We  will  leave  it  to  your  own 
sense  of  right  and  justice,  because  this  committee  has  been  held  up 
before  this  Congress  and  the  country  as  refusing  to  give  Mr.  Atkeson 
sufficient  time  to  testify,  and  as  having  been  in  antagonism  to  him 
and  to  .the  Grange  personally. 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  did  not  get  that  impression  from  the  newspaper 
article,  and  I  think  you  read  more  into  it  than  is  there. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Atkeson  read  that  into  it  himself,  and  he 
stated  that  he  would  not  be  red-blooded  if  he  did  not  resent  it. 

Mrs.  LUND.  What  can  I  do  about  it?  If  there  is  anything  I  can 
do  to  right  it,  I  will  right  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  can  read  Mr.  Atkeson's  testimony. 

Mrs.  LUND.  I  will  read  his  testimony  and  will  write  a  statement 
that  will  set  it  right.  If  it  does  not,  I  will  let  you  rewrite  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  "  And  they  lived  happy  ever  afterwards." 

(Thereupon,  at  12  o'clock,  noon,  the  committee  adjourned  until  to- 
morrow, Thursday,  June  19,  1919,  at  10  o'clock  a.  in.) 


COMMITTEE  ON  PUBLIC  LANDS, 

HOUSE  or  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Thursday,  June  19,  1919. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Nicholas  J.  Sinnott 
(chairman)  presiding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen,  the  committee  will  come  to  order. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  authorized  to  state  to  the  com- 
mittee that  I  have  had  word  from  Secretary  Lane  that  he  is  unable 
to  attend  this  morning,  and  I  think,  in  frankness,  it  ought  to  be 
stated  that  Secretary  Lane  believes  that  unless  some  member  of  the 
committee  wants  to  ask  him  some  questions  he  really  has  stated  all 
he  desires  to  submit  in  his  letter  and  in  his  previous  statement  here. 
He  asked  me,  however,  to  convey  the  information  to  the  committee 
that  when  he  spoke  here  before,  some  two  or  three  weeks  ago,  he  had 
received  in  response  to  his  inquiry  cards  52,000  cards  and  11,000 
letters  from  soldiers  expressing  an  interest  in  this  matter  and  ex- 
pressing a  desire  to  avail  themselves  of  it.  Since  that  time,  and 
while  these  hearings  have  been  in  progress,  he  has  received  additional 
replies,  making  a  total  of  65,000  cards  and  15,000  letters,  which 
makes  80,000  communications  altogether  from  soldiers  on  the  sub- 
ject. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  many,  all  told? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Eighty  thousand.  He  also  asked  me  to  state  to  the 
committee  and  for  the  record  that  he  is  receiving  now  1,200  a  day, 
and  about  800,  or  two-thirds,  of  them  are  coming  from  overseas  and 
400  from  the  soldiers  on  this  side.  The  Secretary  is  perfectly  will- 
ing to  come  back  if  the  committee  wants  him  to,  but  he  feels  that  in 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  595 

his  letter  and  in  his  statement  which  he  made  before  he  has  said 
everything  he  could  say  on  the  subject  and  has  not  anything  to  add. 
I  am  reminded  to  state  that  the  first  returns  that  came  from  over- 
seas were  on  May  30.  Prior  to  that  time  they  had  not  had  a  chance 
to  be  consulted  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Mondell  is  here  this  morning.  I  asked  him  to 
come  over,  thinking  he  might  wish  to  make  an  additional  statement. 
The  committee  will  be  glad  to  hear  you,  Mr.  Mondell. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  FRANK  W.  MONDELL,  A  REPRESENTATIVE 
IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  WYOMING. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  thank  you  very 
much  for  giving  me  the  opportunity  for  saying  a  few  words  more  in 
regard  to  this  bill.  I  realize  you  are  wearied  with  your  long  hear- 
ings and  anxious  to  conclude  your  hearings  on  this  subject  and  get 
to  other  matters,  and  I  would  not  take  the  time  of  the  committee  if 
it  were  not  for  the  fact  that  some  things  said  during  the  hearings 
present  a  situation,  perhaps,  requiring  some  statement  from  one  of 
those  who  had  to  do  with  the  drafting  of  the  legislation ;  and  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  the  Secretary  is  not  able  to  discuss  the  matter  fur- 
ther with  you,  I  felt  as  though  it  was  my  duty  to  do  so.  Whenever 
the  committee  gets  tired  or  thinks  I  have  talked  long  enough,  just 
let  me  know  and  I  will  close  my  statement. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Would  you  prefer  to  conclude,  Mr.  Mondell, 
before  answering  questions? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Yes;  I  would  like  to  make  a  statement  without 
interruption,  if  I  may,  although  if  any  member  of  the  committee 
desires  to  ask  questions  that  relate  directly  to  the  matter  I  am  dis- 
cussing at  the  time  I  shall  be  glad  to  answer  them.  Other  questions 
I  would  prefer,  if  it  is  agreeable  to  the  gentlemen,  that  they  with- 
hold until  I  conclude. 

The  discucssion  on  this  bill  has  taken  so  wide  a  range  that  it  is 
perhaps  important  that  some  one  again  review  the  genesis  of  this 
movement  and  call  attention  to  the  conditions  believed  to  exist  which 
seemed  to  render  wise  legislation  which  would  help  the  returning  sol- 
diers— and  that  means  all  of  the  men  who  were  in  the  service — to 
secure  a  home  on  the  lands. 

Before  the  war  closed,  farsighted  men — and  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  is  one  of  those,  gentlemen — of  both  parties  on  this  com- 
mittee who  have  had  experience  in  matters  of  this  sort  turned  over 
in  their  minds  the  situation  that  the  coming  of  peace  would  present. 
Their  thought  was  that  there  was  likely  to  be  a  condition  under 
\vhich  the  Government  ought  to  make  some  special  effort  to  take  up 
the  slack  in  the  labor  market,  to  insure  a  condition  under  which 
the  returning  soldier  would  not  find  himself  without  means  of  em- 
ployment or  displace  others  who  had  secured  employment. 

In  other  words,  one  of  the  important  situations  that  we  had  to 
look  forward  to  was  that  of  the  possibility  of  a  condition  under 
which  it  would  be  necessary  to  do  all  that  we  could  properly  do  to 
find  employment  for  our  people.  My  opinion  is  that  perhaps  we 
were  overanxious  or  unduly  disturbed  in  that  regard.  It  looks 
now  as  though  there  might  not  be  the  necessity,  or  as  great  a  neces- 


596  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

sity,  as  we  anticipated  to  provide  for  employment  for  the  returning 
soldier.  Fortunately,  the  business  of  the  country  seems  to  be  getting 
to  normal  more  rapidly  than  we  had  anticipated.  That  seems  to  be 
true.  We  do  not  know,  however.  Just  now  there  seems  to  be  jobs 
for  almost  every  one  who  desires  employment,  but  we  have  still 
many  men  in  the  military  service,  at  least  1,000,000  men,  who  will  be 
added  to  the  country's  active  forces  within  the  next  six  months,  and 
we  can  not  be  sure  that  the  business  of  the  country  is  going  to  con- 
tinue to  return  rather  rapidly  to  the  normal;  and  wThile  I  think  it 
is  true  that  there  may  not  be  the  necessity  for  legislation  furnishing 
additional  avenues  of  employment  to  the  extent  that  we  imagined 
there  might  be,  still  we  can  not  ignore  the  fact  that  there  are  still 
many  soldiers  to  return  to  the  ranks  of  active  civil  life  and  that  there 
is  still  a  situation  that  lays  some  obligation  on  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment in  this  regard. 

We  have  tried  to  anticipate  that  situation  through  large  appro- 
priations for  the  building  of  roads.  All  of  the  legislation  of  Con- 
gress that  is  wise  tends  to  create  or  maintain  a  condition  in  the 
country  under  which  men  may  find  employment  and  opportunities, 
so  that,  in  a  general  way,  we  have  been  doing  much,  and  hope  to  do 
more,  in  the  way  of  not  only  providing  opportunities  for  employ- 
ment directly,  but  in  maintaining  and  helping  to  create  conditions 
under  which  opportunities  for  employment  will  be  widened  and 
improved. 

Now,  going  beyond  that,  in  those  early  days  before  the  close  of 
the  war  and  in  the  days  following  the  signing  of  the  armistice, 
thoughtful  men  in  the  departments,  in  Congress,  on  this  committee, 
and  throughout  the  country  had  this  in  mind :  Is  it  the  duty  of  the 
Congress  under  conditions  "now  existing  to  legislate  further  than  it 
has  directly,  definitely  writh  a  view  to  affording  opportunities  to  the 
returning  soldiers?  This  is  a  great  country  of  ours,  and  in  normal 
times  and  under  normal  conditions  the  citizen  asks  nothing  of  his 
Government  other  than  to  be  protected  in  his  rights,  to  be  afforded 
the  opportunities  which  a  well-governed  land  of  great  resources 
affords  him.  But  the  situation  is  quite  different  when  some  4,000,000 
men,  having,  been  temporarily  taken  from  civil  life,  separated  for 
the  time  being  from  the  localities  and  conditions  under  which  they 
have  been  living,  returning  to  civil  life,  may,  some  of  them  at  least, 
have  views  and  expectations  beyond  and  differing  from  those  they 
had  before  they  went  into  the  service. 

All  of  those  who  have  thought  of  this  matter  to  any  considerable 
extent,  or  who  have  given  it  careful  thought,  have  realized  that  the 
great  majority  of  returning  soldiers  will  not  need  or  desire  special 
opportunities  of  the  Government — Federal,  State,  or  municipal. 
The  great  majority  of  them  will  return  home,  and  their  lives  in  the 
future  will  be  very  largely  along  the  lines  they  had  determined  upon 
before  they  entered  the  service.  There  will  be  a  fraction  who,  hav- 
ing gotten  out  into  the  great  world  and  seeing  how  men  live  in  busy 
communities,  and  noting  the  attractiveness  of  cities,  may  be  inclined 
to  enter  industrial  or  commercial  life  rather  than  to  return  to  the 
farm  homes  and  the  country  towns  whence  they  caiue. 

Now,  those  men,  if  conditions  resume  the  normal  within  a  rea- 
sonable length  of  time,  will  not  ask  or  expect  anything  from  the 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  507 

Federal  Government  or  from  any  government — that  is,  if  industrial 
conditions  continue  good,  and  they  are  excellent  just  now  in  most 
parts  of  the  country  with  very  good  wages,  even  as  compared  with 
the  high  cost  of  living.  If  they  continue  so,  the  man  in  industry, 
if  he  is  self-respecting,  and  these  boys  are,  is  not  asking  anything 
of  the  Government  except  that  we  shall  legislate  wisely  along  gen- 
eral lines,  all  of  which  is  helpful  to  the  country  at  large  and  inci- 
dentally to  him.  He  will  receive  good  wages  and  he  will  live  in  a 
community  where  private  enterprise  is  competing  intensely  with  a 
view  to  serving  him  in  every  way.  There  is  not  an  industrial  com- 
munity in  this  country  that  is  not  full  of  cooperative  building  and 
loan  associations,  and  there  is  not  one  that  has  not  a  large  number  of 
very  active  and  very  forceful  and  very  capable  men  whose  business 
it  is  to  build  and  sell  homes,  and  those  men  can  build  and  furnish 
homes,  particularly  with  the  aid  of  cooperative  building  associations, 
cheaper  than  any  governmental  agency  on  earth  can  do  it. 

There  is  another  class  of  men  who  may  not  seek  to  go  into  industry, 
who  have  not  been  lured  by  the  bright  lights,  who  may  actually  turn 
from  the  cities,  having  lived  in  the  open  for  a  considerable  length  of 
time,  to  opportunities  in  the  open,  and  they  will  go  to  various  parts 
of  the  country.  There  are  some  public  lands  open;  some  very 
good  opportunities  for  men  who  have  sufficient  acquaintance  with  the 
conditions  to  enable  them  intelligently  to  utilize  them ;  there  are  some 
sections  where  lands  are  still  very  cheap  compared  with  the  value  of 
their  product.  The  country  is  not  without  opportunities  of  that  sort 
for  men  who  seek  land.  There  are  many  of  them,  here  and  there, 
and  elsewhere,  and  these  men,  many  of  them,  will  find  those  oppor- 
tunities and  they  will  not  ask  anybody  to  assist  them  in  finding  them. 

But  outside  of  these  classes  I  have  been  mentioning,  there  will  be 
men  who  desire  the  opportunity  to  secure  a  home,  who  prefer  to  have 
a  home  on  a  farm,  and  who  may  not  be  able  to  find  the  kind  of 
an  opportunity  that  is  satisfactory  to  them,  and  it  is  that  class  of 
men,  needing  employment,  looking  forward  to  a  home,  that  those 
who  had  to  do  with  the  drafting  of  this  bill  had  in  mind. 

I  think  I  have  covered,  very  briefly  possibly  but  as  completely 
or  as  thoroughly  as  I  am  justified  in  taking  your  time  in  doing,  the 
proposition  that  we  are  not  called  upon,  and  we  are  not  expected  to 
furnish,  any  special  opportunities  to  the  great  majority  of  the  sol- 
diers. We  have  no  call  or  demand  or  request  from  them  that  we 
do  so.  The  argument  is  made  as  against  this  particular  plan  of 
legislation  that — assuming  for  the  sake  of  argument — that  we  need 
not  or  should  not  go  into  the  business  of  industrial  housing,  that  con- 
fining our  efforts  wholly  to  the  matter  of  attaching  men  to  the  soil, 
this  is  not  the  way  to  do  it  or  the  best  or  the  fairest  way  to  do  it. 
Well,  there  are  other  ways  of  assisting  men  to  secure  farm  homes, 
and  one  of  them  is  by  loans  through  the  farm-loan  banks.  It  may  be 
that  the  farm-loan  act  ought  to  be  amended.  There  may  be  some 
argument  in  favor  of  amending  it  in  a  way  to  give  special  privileges 
to  soldiers  or  special  opportunities  to  soldiers.  I  do  not  care  to  argue 
that  question  particularly,  but  the  experience  of  practically  everyone 
who  has  had  experience 'in  movements  at  home  or  abroad  looking  to 
niding  men  in  securing  homes  on  farms  is  that  so  far  as  the  isolated 
tract  or  the  segregated  unit  is  concerned  the  matter  must  be  ap- 


598  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

preached  and  provided  for  from  a  purely  business  standpoint.  The 
boy  who  does  not  care  to  leave  his  own  neighborhood  and  go  into  the 
next  congressional  district — I  understand  some  are  complaining 
because  a  man  might  have  to  go  into  the  next  congressional  district. 

Of  course  it  did  not  occur  to  me  that  we  had  become  so  provincial 
that  we  could  not  move  across  a  county  boundary  without  feeling 
that  we  were  completely  isolating  ourselves  from  oiir  fellows  or  that 
this  plan  would  be  opposed  because  it  would  not  give  the  boys  of 
every  congressional  district  an  opportunity  to  settle  down  next  to 
the  home  folks  or  next  door  to  their  mothers-in-law.  We  passed  the 
farm-loan  act  on  the  theory  that  it  is  not  safe  to  lend  money  to  men 
who  are  handling  their  own  affairs  here,  there,  hither,  and  yonder 
on  the  basis  of  more  than  50  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  property. 
Now,  it  may  be  that  some  other  committee  having  to  do  with  that 
matter  may  conclude  to  make  an  exception  with  regard  to  soldiers 
and  lend  them  60  or  75  per  cent.  Some  gentlemen  have  gone  so  far 
as  to  suggest  a  change  in  the  farm-loan  law  to  the  extent  of  granting 
loans  amounting  to  100  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  property  pur- 
chased. I  have  noticed  that  the  gentlemen  who  have  done  that  are 
mostly  people  who  seem  very  anxious  to  hold  the  boys  at  home  or 
in  the  congressional  district,  but  there  is  no  State  in  the  Union,  so 
far  as  I  knowT,  that  is  proposing  to  put  a  single  solitary  dollar  of  its 
good  money  in  any  such  proposition  as  that.  I  have  not  heard  of 
any  local  community  that  wanted  to  get  behind  it.  There  may  be 
people  who  assume  "that  Uncle  Sam's  money  grows  on  bushes  and 
who  are  so  lacking  in  a  sense  of  responsibility  that  they  are  willing 
to  throw  Uncle  Sam's  money  in  directions  and  for  purposes  in  which 
they  would  not  suggest  that'their  States  or  communities  should  invest 
their  money. 

I  do  not  think  we  can  afford  to  urge  that  the  Federal  Government 
do  anything  in  this  regard  that  we  would  not  be  willing  to  advise 
our  municipalities  to  do,  or  that  we  would  not  be  willing  to  advise 
our  States  to  do.  My  hope  is  that,  if  this  plan  is  successful,  the  proj- 
ects we  undertake  under  this  bill  may  be  only  the  initial  under- 
takings along  these  lines,  the  beginning  of  like  undertakings  by 
private  enterprise,  by  municipalities  in  a  small  way.  and  by  States 
in  a  larger  way.  Australia  is  the  most  recent  example  of  a  coun- 
try that  tried  'buying  farms  for  men  and  putting  them  on  those 
farms,  and  then  leaving  them  to  pay  out.  That  plan  was  a  failure. 
A  reasonably  careful  man,  and  one  who  is  anxious  and  expects  to 
meet  his  obligations,  ordinarily  does  not  care  to  assume  that  sort 
of  burden.  I  think  I  am  a  fairly  good  farmer,  but  I  doubt  if  at  any 
time  in  my  life  I  would  have  been  safe  in  acquiring  a  farm  on  a 
loan  amounting  to  the  entire  cost  of  the  farm.  I  do  not  believe  I 
would  have  had  incentive  enough.  I  would  not  have  had  sufficient 
stake  in  the  enterprise  to  support  me  in  the  struggle  that  would 
have  been  necessary  to  pay  for  the  farm  under  those  circumstances. 
I  roali/e  that  it  would  be  very  helpful  for  men  who  have  farms  to 
soil  in  the  country  to  have  a  lot  of  Federal  money  lying  around  loose 
for  the  purpose  of  buying  those  farms  and  paying  for  thorn  at  a  high 
price.  We  can  not  look  at  the  matter  from  that  standpoint.  We 
must  look  at  it.  first,  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  interest  of  the  sol- 
dier, and,  secondly,  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  interest  of  the  tax- 
payer, one  of  whom  the  soldier  is  and  will  continue  to  be. 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  599 

In  my  opinion,  you  do  not  do  a  man  a  kindness  to  make  what 
practically  amounts  tq  a  free  gift  of  a  farm,  and  I  do  not  know  of 
any  soldier  with  the  right  kind  of  training  and  disposition  that  ex- 
pects you  to  do  it ;  although  it  may  be  that  the  farm-loan  act  ought 
to  be  amended  and  made  more  liberal. 

It  may  be  that  the  farm-loan  act  ought  to  be  amended  in  a  way  to 
make  its  terms  more  liberal  to  soldiers  as  a  class,  but  if  you  are  to  do 
that  it  is  not  the  province  of  this  committee,  because  you  do  not 
have  jurisdiction  over  that  law.  I  would  suggest  that  any  committee 
that  does  so  should  provide  that  any  community  that  desires  to  have 
that  done  shall  put  up  25  per  cent  of  the  100  per  cent  loan.  I  do  not 
believe  that  you  would  find  a  community  in  the  United  States  that 
would  meet  those  terms.  They  would  not  be  willing  to  put  25  per 
cent  in  the  pot  and  then  give  Uncle  Sam  a  lien  on  the  property  for 
the  return  of  his  money.  There  might  be  some  people  who  would 
be  willing  to  put  up  the  25  per  cent  and  take  the  first  lien,  on  the 
theory  that  they  would  at  least  get  that  much  back  and  then  let 
Uncle  Sam  carry  the  load.  I  can  not  think  of  anything  that  would 
have  so  unfortunate  an  effect  upon  the  business  morals  of  the  coun- 
try as  to  enter  upon  a  plan  of  going  abroad  and  buying  cultivated 
farms  for  men  and  handing  them  over  to  them.  It  would  not  be 
a  kindness  to  the  soldier,  and  it  would  be  a  most  indefensible  act  of 
special  privilege  to  certain  men.  Certainly  we  could  not  do  that  in 
the  ca.se  of  all  the  soldiers,  or  in  the  case  of  any  considerable  number 
of  them,  out  of  the  4,000,000;  but  we  would  find  enough,  no  doubt, 
who  might  be  willing  to  accept  that  sort  of  grant  to  make  it  cost  as 
much  as  the  war  has  cost  up  to  this  time.  It  would  not  take  a  very 
great  proportion  of  the  4,000,000  soldiers  on  a  basis  of  that  sort  of 
undertaking  to  make  the  cost  as  great  as  the  cost  of  the  war  has  been, 
leaving  the  country  in  a  completely  demoralized  condition. 

Xow,  that  being  true,  as  I  see  it,  with  regard  to  aid  and  assistance 
in  securing  segregated,  improved  farms,  the  question  arises,  What 
can  we  do?  Well,  fortunately,  the  world  affords  us  innumerable 
examples  of  what  can  be  done,  and  done  successfully,  in  the  matter 
of  giving  men  an  opportunity  to  work  themselves  into  homes  on 
farms.  When  Denmark  lost  her  southern  provinces  to  Germany  she 
found  herself  limited  in  productive  area  and  threatened  with  bank- 
ruptcy as  a  nation.  She  had  a  lot  of  sandy  and  sour  land  that  in  the 
days  of  her  larger  area  men  did  not  use  or  utilize  except  in  a  limited 
way  for  pasturage  purposes.  She  set  about  reclaiming  those  lands, 
and  succeeded  in  making  them  among  the  best  dairy  lands  in  the 
world.  Denmark  became  a  greater  State  through  her  reclamation 
efforts  after  she  had  lost  Schleswig-Holstein  than  she  was  before. 
That  has  been  true  also  of  Australia  and  of  some  parts  of  Germany. 
Our  own  experience  in  reference  to  reclamation  projects  has  not  been 
uniformly  satisfactory,  because  we  did  make  some  mistakes  in  the 
beginning  in  the  selection  of  projects  when  the  work  was  new,  and, 
naturally,  some  things  were  done  that  would  not  be  done  now  in 
the  light  of  greater  experience.  Yet  there  are  two  projects  in  my 
State,  to  use  them  as  an  illustration,  which  have  brought  people 
from  almost  every  State  in  the  Union,  most  of  whom  with  very  little 
to  begin  on.  who  are  working  out  farm  homes — and  very  satisfactory 
farm  homes — on  those  projects. 


600  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

The  history  of  governmental  effort  toward  bringing  men  back  to 
the  land  the  world  over,  I  think,  makes  it  very  clear  that  when  you 
pass  beyond  those  operations  that  must  be  based  on  strict  business 
principles  and  business  experience,  as  related  to  helping  men  secure 
isolated  farms  or  segregated  tracts,  the  only  successful  method  for 
assisting  men  who  have  very  little  to  begin  with  to  secure  homes  and 
pay  for  them  is  through  the  organization  and  development  of  com- 
munities. I  have  been  very  much  interested  in  an  article  that  is  very 
excellent  in  many  respects,  published  in  the  April  number  of  the 
Sea  Power  magazine,  entitled  "  Rooting  Valor  in  American  Soil." 

Mr.  FERRIS.  That  is  the  instructive  article  referred  to  here  yes- 
terday. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  There  are  so  many  good  points  in  this  article  that 
I  do  not  know  whether  the  committee  has  had  its  attention  called  to 
all  of  them. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Whom  is  that  article  from  ? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  It  is  said  to  be  from  Senator  Warren  G.  Harding. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  We  have  heard  otherwise. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Now,  let  me  tell  you  what  conclusion  Senator 
Harding  came  to  and  what  a  wise  conclusion  he  came  to.  After  dis- 
cussing this  whole  field  he  came  to  the  conclusion  that  "  the  prin- 
ciple that  underlies  this  whole  land  scheme  is  that  of  cooperation." 
He  relates  the  experience  of  England  in  the  matter  and  discusses 
the  question  of  the  cooperation  of  the  many  agencies  necessary  for 
success.  Then  he  goes  on  to  say : 

In  the  first  place,  this  plan  contemplates  the  development  of  colonies,  not 
of  individual  isolated  homes.  To  plant  colonies  it  is  necessary  to  acquire 
tracts  of  land  of  considerable  area.  These  are  obtainable  in  all  sections  of 
the  country  within  50  miles  of  New  York,  Cleveland,  St.  Louis,  New  Orleans, 
or  Washington.  There  are  30,000,000  acres  of  unused  land  in  New  England. 
35,000,000  acres  in  the  Middle  States,  180,000,000  in  the  Pacific  States,  making 
425,000,000  in  all. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Did  you  mention  Indiana? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  have  a  high  regard  for  Indiana,  because  some  of 
the  men  who  have  most  informed  and  enlightened  me  in  regard  to 
these  matters  are  sons  of  Indiana.  The  best-informed  man  in  the 
world,  in  my  opinion,  upon  these  various  subjects,  including  the 
subject  of  colonization  and  development  and  the  aiding  of  men  to 
become  home  owners  on  the  land,  is  a  famous  son  of  Indiana,  Dr. 
Elwood  Mead. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Permit  me  to  state  there,  Mr.  Mondell,  that  we 
are  indebted  to  the  gentleman  from  Indiana,  Mr.  Benham,  for  the 
appearance  before  the  committee  of  a  lady  who  furnished  the  ma- 
terial for  the  article  you  have  just  told  us  about. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  That  is  another  contribution  from  Indiana. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  am  also  proud  of  that  distinction. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  There  is  a  gentleman  now  with  the  Interior  De- 
partment, a  citizen  of  Indiana,  who  has  given  me  a  great  deal  of 
accurate  information  on  this  subject.  Now,  I  have  quoted  enough 
from  Senator  Harding's  article  to  make  it  clear  that  the  Senator. 
having  gone  over  the  entire  ground,  and  considered  all  these  various 
plans,  proposals,  and  suggestions,  came  to  the  conclusion  that  every 
man  I  have  ever  known  has  come  to,  when  he  has  studied  the  matter 
carefully  and  unselfishly  and  without  any  thought  of  his 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  601 

ional  district  or  county  or  township,  but  thinking  only  of  the  whole 
country,  that  if  we  are  going  to  do  something  that  is  really  helpful 
and  that  we  can  defend,  that  we  will  not  have  to  apologize  for,  and 
that  we  will  have  no  regret  in  regard  to  the  future,  we  must  adopt 
the  plan  of  development  by  communities. 

The  Senator  goes  further  in  his  article  and  shows  how  the  land 
is  to  be  acquired  for  those  communities,  and  how  it  is  to  be  divided 
up  into  small  farms.  He  goes  further  than  it  would  probably  be 
wise  to  go  in  a  majority  of  cases,  because  he  would  clear,  fence,  dig 
wells;  would  buy  the  horse,  cow,  pigs,  and  flock  of  chickens.  Now, 
that  is  what  this  bill  contemplates,  except  that  it  contemplates  that 
when  it  comes  to  the  house  and  barn  and  flock  of  chickens,  to  the 
pigs,  and  to  the  farm  horse,  the  man  shall  make  some  direct  contri- 
bution, so  that  he  will  really  have  a  stake  in  the  enterprise. 

In  this  article  the  Senator  laments  the  fact  that  the  boys  have 
largely  returned,  and  that  a  great  opportunity  has  been  lost  by  de- 
lay. To  a  certain  extent  all  of  that  is  true,  and  that  is  why  it  is 
important  to  secure  this  legislation  as  soon  as  possible,  because  time 
is  passing.  The  boys  are  returning  and  they  are  taking  up  work 
along  various  lines  and  they  are  seeking  opportunities.  There  are, 
however,  a  great  many  still  to  return,  and  some  of  those  who  have  re- 
turned are  only  temporarily  employed ;  so  that  we  are  not  altogether 
too  late.  The  last  Congress  was  a  war  Congress,  and  it  was  very 
difficult  for  that  Congress  with  its  mind  bent  upon  the  prosecution 
of  the  war  to  turn  its  attention  to  matters  of  conservation,  matters 
of  development,  and  matters  of  restoration.  Now,  what  does  the 
Senator  finally  say  about  this  situation  ?  He  says : 

Now,  the  duty  of  the  Government  is  to  pull  this  situation  together  as  best  it 
can  and  save  what  it  can  out  of  the  wreck  of  neglected  opportunity. 

I  agree  with  the  Senator,  and  that  is  what  we  are  proposing  to  do. 
'What  we  are  proposing  to  do  is  exactly  along  his  lines.  We  are  fol- 
lowing his  plan  just  as  though  we  had  drawn  this  bill  after  reading 
his  article.  I  give  the  Senator  full  credit  for  it.  I  have  always  had 
a  high  regard  for  him,  and  I  give  him  full  credit  for  haying  analyzed 
the  situation  and  reached  the  proper  determination  with  regard  to 
what  ought  to  be  done. 

Of  course,  there  is  something  in  this  article  about  doing  all  this 
by  private  enterprise.  I  understand  that  Mrs.  Lund,  who  was 
before  the  committee  yesterday  and  who  made  some  reference  to  this 
article,  suggested  that  this  development  ought  to  be  done  by  private 
enterprise,  and  I  say  amen  to  that.  If  it  can  be  done  by  private 
enterprise — and  I  am  in  hopes  that  we  shall  so  blaze  the  way  and  in- 
dicate the  processes  and  prove  the  feasibility  of  development  along 
these  lines  that  private  enterprise  will  extend  its  operations— well 
and  good.  Private  enterprise  has  been  engaged  since  the  beginning 
of  time  in  work  of  this  character,  but  generally  on  a  comparatively 
small  scale.  It  is  not  a  new  field,  however,  for  public  or  private 
enterprise  by  any  manner  of  means,  and  so  far  as  I  am  personally 
concerned,  I  disclaim  any  special  credit  for  the  plan  and  purpose  of 
this  bill.  A  ffood  Kepiiblican  friend  of  mine  said  the  other  day, 
"  While  I  advised  you  to  draw  some  legislation  along  the  lines  of 

Eroviding  farm  homes  to  soldiers,  I  did  not  expect  you  to  adopt  the, 
ane  plan."    I  do  not  know  that  I  did  adopt  the  Lane  plan,  though 


602  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Secretary  Lane  has  long  advocated  a  development  plan,  as  have 
others,  including  Senator  Harding.  I  do  not  care  what  you  call  the 
plan,  but  it  is  in  my  opinion  the  only  plan  through  which  you  can 
furnish  farm  homes  to  men  who  must  begin  with  comparatively  lit- 
tle except  an  enterprising  mind  and  a  good  right  arm.  This  is  a 
plan  by  which  you  can  accomplish  your  purpose  without  robbing  the 
man  of  his  self-respect  and  without  creating  a  condition  in  the  coun- 
try for  which  you  would  have  to  apologize.  I  have  not  followed  these 
hearings  except  in  a  very  general  way,  and  I  do  not  know  just  what 
has  been  stated  here,  but  I  will  venture  to  say  that  practically  every 
one  who  has  been  before  this  committee  proposing  other  plans  has 
through  cross-questioning  by  the  committee  been  called  upon  to  ex- 
press doubt  of  the  success  of  the  other  plans,  and  has  been  compelled 
to  acknowledge  that  they  involve  expenditures  of  billions  of  dollars 
at  the  very  least.  Now,  I  may  be  mistaken  about  that,  and,  perhaps, 
that  is  not  true,  but  this  is  an  intelligent  committee  and  it  is  familiar 
with  the  situation,  and  I  know  that  is  the  inevitable  result  of  the 
cross-examination  of  men  who  may  come  forward  with  other  plans. 

Some  people  hurl  anathemas  at  this  bill  because  they  say  it  is  a 
reclamation  proposition,  and  a  dear  friend  of  mine  became  so  dis- 
turbed about  that  that  he  wanted  to  change  the  language  of  the  enact- 
ing clause  so  as  not  to  offend  anyone  who  did  not  like  the  word 
"  reclamation."  It  is  a  reclamation  project,  and  that  is  one  of  its 
very  great  virtues.  It  is  not  proposed  to  displace  any  man  who  is  on 
a  farm;  it  is  not  proposed  to  put  some  other  man  in  place  of  a  man 
who  is  now  on  a  well-tilled,  well-cared-f or,  and  well-kept  farm.  What 
particular  good  would  be  accomplished  through  that  sort  of  a  process? 
What  good  could  be  accomplished  by  displacing  some  one  who  is 
now  on  a  farm,  having  him  move  to  town,  and  putting  some  oho 
else  on  the  farm  to  whom  you  have  loaned  its  full  value,  and  who 
therefore  has  no  stake  in  it?  If  the  crops  are  all  good,  well  and  good ; 
and  if  he  pays  out,  wrell  and  good ;  but  if  he  does  not  he  has  not  lost" 
anything  and  has  had  a  good  living  in  the  meantime.  This  bill  pro- 
poses reclamation  projects  in  every  State  in  the  Union,  and  that  is 
one  of  its  essential  features.  When  you  plan  and  propose  to  take 
men  who  have  saved  but  little  and  give  them  an  opportunity  to  ac- 
quire a  home,  there  must  be  along  with  it  an  opportunity  of  employ- 
ment in  the  acquirement  of  the  home.  You  will  give  the  man  an 
opportunity  to  work  a  year  or  two  years,  or  whatever  the  time  may  be, 
until  the  project  is  developed,  during  which  period,  with  the  hope" and 
expectation  of  a  home,  he  will  have  had  the  necessary  incentive  to 
save.  He  will  save,  because  he  will  be  looking  forward  to  a  home, 
and  writh  that  saving  he  will  be  able  to  meet  the  first  small  payment 
and  the  comparatively  easy  requirements  with  regard  to  improve- 
ments, live  stock,  etc. 

Of  course,  it  is  true  that  one  of  these  soldier  boys  might  work  else- 
where and  then  come  to  a  project  as  it  is  nearing  completion,  and, 
of  course,  he  would  be  given  an  opportunity  to  purchase,  the  prefer- 
ence, however,  being  given  to  the  man  who  had  worked  on  the  proj- 
ect. I  have  no  doubt  but  what  there  would  be  numerous  oppor- 
tunities for  men  who  have  worked  and  saved  elsewhere  on  these 
projects,  but  primarily  we  want  to  help  the  man  who  needs  the 
incentive  and  who  will  see  the  goal  ahead  of  him. 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  603 

The  CHAIRMAN.  While  you  are  on  that  subject  of  reclamation,  I 
have  here  a  clipping  from  a  newspaper  which  contains  the  form  of  a 
protest  to  be  sent  to  Congress,  showing,  alleging,  or  claiming  that 
it  is  just  a  plan  to  reclaim  swamps,  deserts,  and  cut-over  lands.  This 
is  from  some  rural  newspaper — the  American  Agriculturist. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  This  is  entitled: 

Vigorous  protest  to  Congress  against  Lane  bill  to  spend  $500,000,000  reclaiming 
dist.-mr  swamps  and  deserts  for  soldiers  who  prefer  farms  in  their  own  State — 
A  better  plan  which  will  employ  right  here  in  the  Middle  States  agricultural 
development  every  dollar  that  our  taxpayers  or  investors  may  put  up. 

This  is  from  the  American  Agriculturist  of  June  7,  and  seems  to 
be  a  part  of  a  general  propaganda  sent  out  by  the  agriculturists. 
I  do  not  know  whether  you  gentlemen  ever  heard  the  definition  given 
some  years  ago  by  a  certain  statesman  of  an  agriculturist  as  a  man 
who  farmed  the  farmer.  I  think  it  is  a  very  good  definition.  We  do 
not  have  to  go  far  to  find  these  gentlemen :  you  can  find  some  of  them 
in  the  Maryland  Agriculture  College.  There  are  a  lot  of  com- 
fortably situated  gentlemen  there  w^ho,  I  presume,  are  paid  out  of 
the  Federal  Treasury — they  are  if  they  belong  to  the  branch  of  that 
college  which  is  supported  by  the  Federal  Treasury. 

Mr.  JOHNSOX.  What  college  is  that? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  The  Maryland  College  of  Agriculture  out  here  at 
College  Park,  about  5  miles  from  here.  They  have  appealed  to  the 
Congress  in  the  name  of  the  farmers  of  Maryland.  They  are  paid 
by  the  Federal  Government,  and  they  are  protesting  because  some 
one  is  proposing,  so  they  say,  to  bring  other  acres  into  cultivation 
to  compete  with  the  acres  now  under  cultivation. 

Xow,  I  have  heard  that  song  ever  since  I  can  remember.  A  gen- 
tleman by  the  name  of  Buchanan  sung  it  a  great  many  years  ago  in 
connection  with  a  veto  of  the  homestead  bill.  Folks  now  and  again, 
here  and  there,  have  echoed  it  every  time  Congress  has  proposed  land 
opportunities  anywhere.  We  heard  it  quite  widely  when  we  were 
arguing  the  reclamation  law ;  but  in  all  that  time  I  never  heard  a 
real  farmer  utter  any  sentiment  of  that  sort.  It  was  always  the 
agriculturist,  the  well-paid,  well-fed  agriculturist,  who  in  one  way 
or  another  was  farming  the  farmer — to  his  benefit  in  some  cases, 
no  doubt,  but  at  any  rate  the  anxiety,  the  fear  of  additional  acres 
brought  into  competition  with  his  acres  has  never,  so  far  as  my 
experience  goes,  came  from  a  man  who  tills  the  soil. 

Why  ?  Because,  first,  while  he  has  no  monopoly  on  horse  sense,  the 
man  who  lives  close  to  the  soil  all  his  life,  or  a  large  part  of  his  life, 
is  generally  distinguished  above  all  else  for  his  hard,  common,  horse 
sense,  and  'he  also  has  some  knowledge  of  facts.  He  may  not  have 
a  college  education,  but  he  has  a  fair  notion  of  the  size  of  his  country 
and  of  the  limitless  area  of  its  cultivated  acres,  and  the  tremendous 
volume  of  its  agricultural  products,  and  when  you  talk  to  him  about 
bearing  the  market  for  agricultural  products  because  you  open  50.000 
acres  or  25.000  or  40,000  or  100,000  acres  somewhere,  he  will  laugh 
at  you.  It  is  the  man  who  assumes  to  speak  for  him  and  who  has 
some  ax  of  his  own  to  grind  that  talks  that  sort  of  thing. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Is  not  that  contention  almost  as  absurd  as  for  a 
school  teacher  to  advocate  closing  the  schools  so  that  he  may  have 
a  monopoly? 


604  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIEES. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  think  it  would  be  about  in  the  same  category. 
The  fact  is,  that  since  time  began  and  men  began  to  farm,  there  has 
never  been  a  time  in  any  land  under  the  sun  where  there  were  too 
many  acres  cultivated,  and  sooner  or  later,  the  activities  of  every 
government,  that  has  ever  existed,  has  been  invoked  for  the  purpose 
of  encouraging  movements  back  to  the  land  or  movements  to  the 
land,  and  the  development  of  farm  areas  for  many  reasons:  First, 
because  there  is  where  you  get  your  best  citizenship.  That  is  the 
sort  of  life  that  makes  men  most  nearly  normal,  sensible,  and  reason- 
able, and  it  is  the  one  industry  on  the  face  of  the  earth  that  is  abso- 
lutely essential  and  the  only  one.  Therefore,  naturally,  wise  legis- 
lators the  world  over,  and  since  time  began,  have  legislated  with  a 
view  to  encouraging  men  to  own  land  and  to  till  the  soil. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Mr.  Mondell,  right  there,  is  it  or  is  it  not  true  that 
the  other  nations  are  only  making  efforts  along  this  line  and  not  for 
any  general  bounty  to  their  soldiers? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  That  is  true.  Some  gentlemen,  I  think,  have  not 
clearly  understood  what  the  effect  of  the  passage  of  this  bill  would 
be,  and  that  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
bill  itself  carries  nothing  that  indicates  just  the  procedure  with  re- 
gard to  appropriations  under  it.  This  bill  carries  no  appropriation. 
If  it  becomes  a  law  the  Secretary  would  have  nothing  under  it 
except  authority,  and  he  could  not  exercise  that  authority  in  any 
important  respect  without  an  appropriation.  So  that  immediately 
following  the  passage  of  this  legislation,  or,  possibly,  in  conference 
by  general  agreement,  as  the  bill  came  to  its  final  stages,  a  provision 
would  have  to  be  made  for  an  appropriation  of  a  comparatively  few 
thousand  dollars,  sufficient  to  enable  the  Secretary  to  make  his  first 
estimate  and  present  his  first  projects  under  this  bill.  Under  this 
act,  while  Congress  will  not  initiate  projects,  Congress  will  have  a 
complete  veto  on  projects,  as  it  now  has  a  veto  on  projects  under  the 
reclamation  law,  so  that  the  legislating  committee  of  the  House  and 
the  membership  of  the  House  will  have  complete  control. 

Now,  some  folks  have  suggested  that  all  this  money  might  be  used 
here,  there,  or  yonder.  I  am  not  worried  about  that  personally 
at  all.  I  do  not  expect  my  section  to  be  entirely  overlooked, 
neither  do  I  expect  that  it  shall  have  more  than  a  reasonable 
share,  or  that  it  ever  will  receive  a  dollar  unless  it  has  a  thoroughly 
feasible  project.  I  am  not  fearful  that  the  secretary  will  spend  all 
this  money  in  the  South,  or  in  the  Northwest,  or  in  the  East.  I  am 
confident  that  it  will  be  distributed ;  but  in  any  event  the  Secretary 
must  come  to  the  Congress,  unless  we  amend  this  bill,  with  his  first 
projects,  and  tell  us  where  he  expects  to  undertake  them  and  how 
much  he  anticipates  they  will  cost.  So  that  the  Congress  will  have 
complete  control,  first,  'in  the  matter  of  the  initial  appropriation 
which  will  be,  of  course,  properly  phrased  to  enable  him  to  make  his 
first  investigations,  such  as  he  has  not  already  made,  and  present  his 
first  estimates.  Congress  will  be  in  session,  in  my  opinion,  the  larger 
part  of  the  summer,  and  those  things  can  be  very  promptly  passed 
upon.  The  Secretary  would  be  prepared  to  make  his  first  estimate 
and  the  appropriation  could  be  promptly  made  for  carrying  out  that 
estimate.  That  would  delay  the  matter  "a  little,  but  it  need  hot  delay 
it  long. 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  605 

Now,  I  have  taken  up  the  time  of  the  committee  probably  longer 
than  I  should,  and  as  we  are  nearing  the  hour  of  the  convening  of  the 
House,  I  shall  not  take  the  time  of  the  committee  further,  unless  gen- 
tlemen desire  to  ask  me  some  questions. 

Mr.  BEN  HAM.  If  the  time  permit,  there  are  several  questions  that  I 
vould  like  to  have  discussed  by  you  further. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  And  I  would  like  to  ask  some  questions  after  Mr. 
Benham  is  through. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  There  have  been  several  references  made  in  this  com- 
mittee, both  by  witnesses  and  members  of  the  committee,  in  regard 
to  the  corrupt  propaganda  that  has  been  conducted  in  rural  news- 
papers and  elsewhere  with  regard  to  the  opposition  to  this  bill. 
Now,  having  my  eyes  and  ears  open,  I  have  frequently  wanted  to 
ask,  in  the  first  place,  whether  there  is  any  crime  committed  if 
people  who  are  opposed  to  this  bill  talk  and  write  against  it ;  and,  in 
the  second  place,  I  would  like  to  have  some  one  who  knows  to  dis- 
cuss fully,  for  my  personal  information,  the  question  of  how  much 
this  hearing  in  favor'  of  the  bill  is  costing  the  United  States 
Treasury. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  do  not  know  whether  that  question  should  be 
directed  to  me,  because  I  have  not  discussed  propaganda  here  or 
elsewhere  at  any  time,  and  I  do  not  happen  to  be  informed  about 
the  propaganda.  Certain  matters  have  come  to  my  attention  to 
which  I  have  referred.  The  chairman  of  the  committee  can  prob- 
ably inform  the  gentleman  as  to  how  much  it  costs  to  consider  ques- 
tions before  the  committee,  but  I  presume  that  the  committee  has 
never  considered  the  length  of  its  hearings  from  the  standpoint  of 
how  much  it  might  cost  gentlemen  to  walk  over  here. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  You  are  not  directing  your  attention  to  the  point 
that  I  have  in  mind. 

Mr.  MONDELI/.  I  have  said  nothing  about  propaganda. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  It  may  not  cost  anything  to  have  those  witnesses 
here  who  are  testifying  against  the  proposition,  but  my  good  friend, 
formerly  of  Indiana,  but  now  of  California,  has  crossed  the  conti- 
nent one  or  more  times,  and  I  do  not  know  whether  that  is  purely 
philanthropy  on  the  part  of  my  good  friend  from  Indiana  or 
whether,  being  a  part  of  the  Reclamation  Service,  he  is  being  paid 
out  of  the  Treasury. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  The  gentleman  has  reference  to  Mr.  Elwood  Mead. 
I  asked  Mr.  Mead  to  come  here,  and  he  came  at  my  request.  I  have 
known  him  for  years,  and  at  my  request  he  crossed  the  continent  to 
discuss  these  matters  with  various  people 

Mr.  BENHAM  (interposing).  What  I  am  trying  to  get  at  is  at 
whose  expense  did  he  come? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Whether  he  came  at  his  own  expense  or  in  connec- 
tion with  other  work  that  he  is  engaged  in  I  do  not  know.  He  is 
recognized  as  a  splendid  example  of  the  man  who  knows  about 
these  things.  However,  I  take  it  that  if  the  committee  should  go 
into  the  matter  of  propaganda  they  would  find  that  there  has  been 
very  much  more  carried  on  in  opposition  to  the  bill  than  in  favor 
of  it.  Of  course,  we  must  not  forget  this,  that  Congress,  after  due 
deliberation,  appropriated  $100,000  for  the  purpose  of  examining 
projects  with  this  very  sort  of  plan  in  view;  so  that  Congress  itself 


606  HOMES  FOB   SOLDIERS. 

did  start  the  work  by  making  an  appropriation  for  the  purpose 
of  examining  projects. 

Mr.  GANDY.  Was  there  not  really  an  appropriation  of  $200,000  ? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  The  $100,000  that  I  referred  to  was  directly  and 
specifically  made  for  this  class  of  work.  There  was  $100,000  appro- 
priated for  examinations  which  would  also  tend  to  furnish  informa- 
tion with  regard  to  this  class  of  work. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Mondell  another  question: 
When  did  you  prepare  this  bill,  or  about  what  date  ? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  think  I  began  work  on  it  about  the  beginning  of 
the  recess,  or  soon  after  the  4th  of  March.  I  think  I  finally  presented 
my  draft  of  the  bill  to  some  gentlemen  in  the  Interior  Department 
about  a  week  before  Congress  convened. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  You  suggested  that  some  mistakes  were  made  in  con- 
nection with  projects.  Since  you  say  you  have  read  the  hearings, 
I  assume  that  you  have  read  the  testimony  of  the  gentlemen  repre- 
senting the  reclamation  work,  and  I  wanted  to  ask  you  whether  mis- 
takes, or  governmental  mistakes,  have  not  been  made  in  connection 
with  matters  of  reclamation? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Yes ;  there  is  no  doubt  about  that,  and  I  think  I  said 
that. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Do  you  understand  that  your  statement,  or  that  your 
admission  is,  or  is  not,  in  harmony  with  what  has  been  stated  in  the 
hearings  by  gentlemen  representing  the  Interior  Department  ? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  do  not  think  that  anybody  connected  with  the 
department  has  ever  denied  that  mistakes  have  been  made.  For  in- 
stance, they  selected  one  project  after  a  most  careful  examination  and 
constructed  a  reservoir,  but  it  developed  after  the  water  was  turned 
in  that  the  geological  formation  was  such,  or  the  rock  formation  was 
such,  that  the  reservoir  would  not  hold  water. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Mr.  Davis  said  that  about  95  per  cent  of  the  money 
put  into  the  projects  by  the  Government  would  be  returned,  and  that 
only  about  5  per  cent  was  in  doubt. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  do  not  anticipate  that  any  enterprise  of  this  sort 
could  go  through  to  a  conclusion  without  some  mistakes  being  made. 
Anyone  who  has  had  any  experience  in  business  affairs  knows  that 
some  mistakes  are  inevitable,  and  I  should  anticipate  that  eventu- 
ally there  might  be  some  loss  in  an  enterprise  of  this  sort.  The  rec- 
lamation enterprise  was  undertaken  at  a  time  when  we  had  very 
little  information  with  regard  to  that  sort  of  thing,  and  at  a  time 
when  Congress  did  not  have  control,  but,  notwithstanding  that,  the 
mistakes  have  been  comparatively  few,  and  the  project  will,  in  the 
main,  pay  out. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  You  have  given  a  few  examples  of  enterprises  of  this 
sort,  and  have  referred  to  Denmark.  Do  you  want  to  go  on  record 
as  speaking  of  the  Denmark  colonization  scheme  or  the  Denmark 
reclamation  scheme  as  being  a  good  example  of  colonization  or  a  good 
example  of  reclamation? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Well,  both.  Of  course,  if  you  reclaim  an  area  that 
has  not  been  in  a  high  state  of  cultivation,  you  necessarily  colonize  it. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  see  that.    Is  that  what  this  bill  proposes  to  do? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Exactly;  it  is  for  reclamation  and  colonization.  I 
think  that  is  one  of  its  great  virtues. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  607 

Mr.  SEN  HAM.  Then,  you  are  entirely  in  harmony  with  what  has 
been  done  in  years  past  in  Denmark  ? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  No  two  countries  present  exactly  the  same  con- 
ditions. 

Mr.  BEXHAM.  There  are  some  others  who  want  to  ask  you  ques- 
tions, but  I  have  in  mind  one  more  that  I  would  like  to  ask:  You 
spoke  of  this  in  several  cases  as  a  purely  business  proposition. 
Aside  from  the  aid  you  furnish,  and  you  concede  that  no  necessity 
may  exist  in  regard  to  employment,  but  taking  it  purely  as  a  busi- 
ness proposition,  would  you  improve  the  projects  that  we  are  talking 
about  according  to  the  method  suggested  in  your  bill  as  a  purely 
business  proposition? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  First,  I  do  not  admit  anything  in  regard  to  em- 
ployment. I  do  not  know  what  the  conditions  of  employment  may 
be,  but  I  expressed  the  hope  that  they  would  not  be  as  acute  as  we 
anticipate^  at  one  time.  Therefore  I  was  willing  to  assume,  from 
that  standpoint,  that  there  might  not  be  quite  the  urgency  for  some- 
thing of  that  sort  that  we  thought  there  might  be  at  one  time.  I 
think  that  is  entirely  a  matter  of  opinion.  But  speaking  about  the 
development  of  these  projects,  the  only  way  in  which  areas  that  are 
not  now  utilized  in  an  intensive  way  can  be  utilized  advantageously 
is  through  development  on  a  plan  of  reclamation  and  colonization. 
I  think  no  one  will  doubt  that.  There  might  be  a  difference  of 
opinion  as  to  whether  the  Government  ought  to  undertake  it,  as  to 
whether  the  State  ought  to  undertake  it,  or  as  to  whether  individuals 
ought  to  undertake  it.  but  given  an  area  that  needs  certain  work  in 
order  to  make  it  available  for  intensive  cultivation,  you  can  only 
accomplish  that  in  a  large  way  and,  in  connection  with  reclamation, 
through  the  colonization  of  the  area. 

Mr.  BEXHAM.  You  do  not  answer  my  question,  or,  at  least,  as  I 
think  it  ought  to  be  or  with  the  fullness  with  which  I  think  it  ought 
to  be  answered.  Now,  here  is  a  given  amount  of  work  to  be  done  as 
a  purely  business  proposition,  taking  the  matter  simply  as  a  dollars- 
and-cents  proposition.  Would  you  say  let  the  Government  do  it  or 
let  individuals  do  it? 

Mr.  MOXDELL.  So  far  as  all  of  those  things  are  concerned,  if  con- 
ditions were  such  that  private  enterprise  could  fully  and  adequately 
occupy  the  field  I  would  say  allow  them,  by  all  manner  of  means,  to 
do  so.  It  was  because  private  enterprise  did  not  fully,  adequately, 
and  satisfactorily  cover  the  field  that  we  provided  the  farm-loan 
act,  and  it  was  because  private  enterprise  under  certain  conditions 
could  not  adequately  occupy  the  field  that  we  embarked  upon  the 
reclamation  projects.  It  is  because  of  the  condition  confronting  us, 
in  which  we  think  there  may  be  need  of  furnishing  additional  op- 
portunities for  employment  and  because  we  know  there  will  not  be 
sufficient  opportunity  to  meet  the  demand  of  those  who  are  seeking 
homes  and  who  do  not  have  money  or  credit  with  which  to  make 
the  first  payment,  that  we  feel  that  the  Federal  Government  should 
embark  upon  this  enterprise.  But  I  am  sure  that  all  of  us  hope  that 
these  projects  will  be  so  successful  that  private  enterprise  later  on, 
as  well  as  the  States  and  municipalities,  will  take  up  the  work,  and 
that  we  shall  prove  in  this  work,  as  we  have  proved  in  the  work  of 
reclamation,  that  the  Federal  Government  is  simply  blazing  the 
133319—19 39 


608  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIE'RS. 

trail,  pointing  the  way,  illuminating  the  principle,  and  encouraging 
other  agencies  to  take  up  the  work. 

Mr.  BEN  HAM.  I  would  like  to  ask  one  more  question  as  a  matter  for 
my  own  personal  information.  I  do  not  know  the  rules  under  which 
the  committees  work  generally,  and  I  wanted  to  ask  this  question  to 
illuminate  that  point :  Did  you  request  to  come  before  this  committee 
because  you  had  additional  information  to  give  the  committee,  or 
were  you  requested  to  come  before  the  committee  to  combat  the  argu- 
ments that  had  been  produced  by  gentlemen  representing  the  other 
side? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  That,  it  seems  to  me,  is  not  a  proper  question. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  answer  that. 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  is  an  impertinent  question. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  I  think  it  imputes  a  motive 

Mr.  MONDELL  (interposing).  I  desire  to  answer  that  question.  I 
occupy  a  position  of  some  responsibility  in  the  House,  thanks  to  my 
colleagues.  I  have  had  some  experience  in  development  work  in  one 
way  or  another,  and  particularly  in  connection  with  legislation  hav- 
ing to  do  with  development  work.  I  have  studied  this  question  con- 
siderably, not  only  recently  but  in  times  past.  I  have  been  fortu- 
nate in  having  some  very  good  friends  who  are  interested  in  this 
class  of  work  through  public  agencies  and  who  have  talked  to  me 
about  their  work  at  one  time  and  another.  I  introduced  this  bill 
because  the  matter  had  been  taken  up  in  the  last  Congress,  and  gentle- 
men on  both  sides  felt  that  it  should  be  pursued  by  this  Congress. 

It  is  usual  for  a  Member  of  the  majority  to  introduce  a  bill  which ' 
is  regarded  as  being  of  such  importance  as  this  bill  is,  and  it  was 
suggested  to  me  by  various  gentlemen  that  it  might  be  well  for  me 
to  interest  myself  in  the  matter.  That  I  proceeded  to  do,  not  in  my 
capacity  as  floor  leader  but  as  an  individual  Member  of  the  House 
of  Representatives.  I  want  it  thoroughly  understood  that  I  do  not 
want  to  bind  anybody  or  persuade  anybody  against  his  judgment  in 
regard  to  the  matter.  So  much  for  the  drafting  and  introduction 
of  the  bill.  I  appeared  before  the  committee  and  took  up  its  time 
to  a  considerable  extent,  and  I  am  under  great  obligations  to  the 
committee  for  its  patience.  I  have  kept  somewhat  in  touch  with  your 
hearings,  although  I  do  not  know  all  that  has  been  going  on  here,  and 
I  expressed  a  desire  to  appear  before  the  committee  again  before  the 
matter  was  closed. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  As  a  matter  of  personal  information,  I  wanted  to 
know  if  there  was  any  natural  stopping  place  for  the  hearings.  I 
would  infer  from  Mr.  Mondell's  statement  to-day  that  other  persons 
would  have  the  right  to  be  heard  a  second  time,  and  I  simply  wanted 
to  know  as  a  matter  of  personal  information  as  to  what  is  customary 
in  committee  hearings.  What  I  am  trying  to  get  at  is  this :  Mr.  Mon- 
dell's statement  to-day  might  be  regarded  as  a  statement  in  rebuttal, 
and  I  wanted  to  find  out  whether  it  was  customary  to  have  argu- 
ments and  then  rebuttals. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  a  very  natural  process  and  the  logical  thing 
to  do. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Let  me  suggest  one  or  two  things :  Because  of  tho  fact 
that  I  have  been  interested  in  this  matter  and  had  charge  of  it  in 
the  last  Congress,  I  have  been  consulting  with  Mr.  Mondell  several 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  609> 

times  whenever  he  had  the  leisure,  and  I  have  personally  urged  him 
to  assist  us  in  every  way  he  could.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  was  for- 
merly the  chairman  of  this  committee,  and  was  the  chairman  for  a 
number  of  years  when  I  was  a  member  of  it,  and  we  of  the  West 
have  the  most  implicit  confidence  in  him.  I  might  say,  paren- 
thetically, that  we  are  all  mighty  glad  that  he  is  the  leader  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  at  the  present  time.  That  is  the  way  we 
feel  in  our  country.  I  feel  that  it  is  not  only  proper,  but  that  we- 
should  extend  that  courtesy  to  a  former  member  of  the  committee, 
and  especially  a  former  chairman  of  the  committee,  to  have  him 
appear  whenever  he  wants  to  come  before  us.  Nobody  has  ever  in- 
timated that  there  was  anything  improper  in  that. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  want  to  say  that  personally  I  have  the  highest 
regard  for  Mr.  Mondell,  and  I  think  that  it  is  perfectly  natural  that 
he  should  come  before  the  committee  and  give  us  as  many  explana- 
tions as  he  can  or  as  we  may  require  to  assist  us  in  our  deliberations. 
He  is  the  author  of  the  particular  bill  under  consideration.  Notwith- 
standing my  regard  for  Mr.  Mondell,  I  think  he  is  fallible  and  that 
he  is  wrong  in  that  measure.  You  say  that  this  is  a  reclamation 
project  ? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  said  it  had  been  criticized  on  th£  ground  that  it 
was  a  reclamation  project.  It  had  never  occurred  to  me  that  there 
was  anything  particularly  bad  or  indefensible  about  projects  of 
reclamation.  The  winning  of  America  from  Plymouth  Rock  to  the 
Golden  Gate  has  been  one  continuous  project  of  reclamation.  It 
has  never  been  anything  else.  So  I  did  not  think  the  fact  that  it 
meant  the  development  and  declamation  of  acres  that  are  not  now- 
utilized  in  an  intensive  way  of  itself  discredited  the  proposition.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  I  think  that  is  one  of  its  very  great  virtues,  that  it 
proposes  to  make  many  useful  blades  of  many  useful  things  grow 
where  few  grow  now. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Was  this  measure  you  have  prepared  and  offered  in 
this  committee  conceived  as  a  reclamation  project  or  conceived  as  an. 
aid  to  the  soldiers  who  had  participated  in  the  recent  war? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Well,  I  do  not  know  that  I  quite  understand  the- 
gentleman's  question. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Well,  you  said  before  in  making  your  general  state- 
ment that  this  is  a  reclamation  project. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  did  not  say  that  exactly,  although  I  am  willing  to 
say  it.  I  said  that  it  had  been  assailed  on  the  ground  that  it  re- 
claimed land.  If  it  did  not  reclaim  land,  if  it  did  not  add  to  the 
highly  productive  acreage  of  America,  it  would  not  be  worth  while 
in  the  interest  of  the  soldier,  because  it  would  not  help  the  soldier  in 
the  most  practical  way  and  would  not  help  the  soldier's  country. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Mr.  Mondell,  will  you  answer  this  question :  Was  it 
conceived  as  a  reclamation  proposition  for  the  purpose  of  reclaiming 
the  land  of  the  country  and  taking  advantage  of  the  unemployed  sol- 
dier, or  was  it  conceived  as  an  aid  to  all  the  soldiers  who  might  need! 
it  after  they  returned  from  the  war. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Now,  if  I  have  time  to  begin  back  to  where  my  first, 
interest  came  in  this  matter 

Mr.  NICHOLS  (interposing).  No 


610  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  MONDELL  (continuing). well,  I  must,  because  the  gentle- 
man wants  my  view.  I  can  not  speak  for  other  gentlemen. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Mr.  Mondell,  the  reason  I  ask  the  question 

Mr.  MONDELL  (interposing).  One  minute,  please. 

Mr.  NICHOLS  (continuing).  is  because  the  title  of  the  bill  says 

to  provide  employment  and  rural  homes  for  soldiers. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Yes;  through  reclamation. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Only  through  reclamation? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Yes ;  of  one  sort  or  another. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Mr.  Chairman 

The  CHAIRMAN.  One  moment. 

Mr.  MONDELL  (continuing). so  far  as  the  bill  is  concerned.  In 

other  words,  under  this  bill  you  could  not  provide  homes  unless  you 
had  lands,  and  unless  you  put  them  in  condition  whereby  the  soldier 
could  use  them. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Just  one  moment.  Mr.  Mondell,  a  great  many  ap- 
pearing before  this  committee  have  used  the  term  "  reclamation  "  in 
a  somewhat  odius  sense,  odius  to  them  as  meaning  solely  the  irriga- 
tion of  arid  lands  and  the  draining  of  swamp  lands. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  did  not  assume  that  the  gentleman  had  irrigation 
and  reclamation  confused. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  know  why,  because 
a  person  asks  a  question,  you  gentlemen  who  seem  particularly  in- 
terested in  this  matter  from  the  far  western  standpoint  should  take 
offense.  I  had  intended  none.  I  am  asking  my  questions  sincerely, 
and  I  am  not  using  the  wrord  "  reclamation  "  in  an  odius  sense.  I 
believe  in  reclamation,  and  the  questions  I  am  asking  are  not  for 
that  purpose. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  My  remark  was  not  toward  you  at  all. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  had  no  such  intention. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  had  no  reference  to  you. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  The  gentleman's  question  seems  to  imply,  and  is 
this  simply  a  scheme  of  some  gentlemen  in  the  name  of  the  soldier  to 
do  something  that  ought  not  to  be  done?  That  is  practically  what 
his  question  amounts  to. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  do  not  mean  that.  Mr.  Mondell,  I  am  not  going  to 
allow  you  to  read  into  my  questions  a  meaning  of  your  own.  I  know 
what  I  intended  by  the  question.  If  you  do  not  understand  it,  I  will 
try  to  make  it  plain,  and  if  I  can  not,  you  not  have  to  answer  it.  I 
want  to  know  whether  the  purpose  is  to  help  a  great  majority  of  the 
rsoldiers  or  only  a  few  of  the  soldiers.  I  will  ask  you  a  further 
-question. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Will  you  let  me  answer  the  question?  It  will  only 
Tielp  directly  comparatively  few  of  them.  There  is  not  any  doubt 
about  that. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Suppose  that  under  this  scheme  of  yours,  Mr.  Mon- 
-dell,  3,000,000  soldiers  desired  to  take  advantage  of  the  opportunity 
that  was  offered  them  under  this  bill,  what  would  happen? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Of  course,  in  considering  legislation  I  do  not  ordi- 
narily consider  a  proposition  which  I  know  to  be  utterly  impossible. 
I  know,  and  we  all  know,  that  3,000,000  soldiers  are  not  going  to 
seek  this  kind  of  an  opportunity. 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  611 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Would  it  not  cost  just  as  much  as  you  stated  a 
moment  ago  in  your  original  statement  as  much  as  the  war  has 
already  cost,  to  take  care  of  three-fourths  of  the  soldiers  under  this 
proposition  ? 

Mr.  MOXDELL.  If  three-fourths  of  the  soldiers  wanted  to  enter  upon 
this  sort  of  a  proposition,  it  would  cost  a  great  deal  of  money,  but  no 
three- fourths  of  them  or  one-fourth  of  them  will  enter  upon  any 
enterprise  that  the  Federal  Government  may  launch  in  their  behalf 
unless  it  be  a  pure  gift,  and  no  one,  anywhere — I  want  to  emphasize 
that — who  has  carefulty  considered  the  situation  feels  there  is  any 
obligation  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  Government  to  do  something 
especially  out  of  the  ordinary  for  the  bulk  of  the  soldiers,  or  that  the 
bulk  of  the  soldiers  are  expecting  the  Government  to  do  anything 
extraordinary  for  them  or  anything  out  of  the  ordinary.  In  any 
situation  that  develops  in  a  country  like  ours  where  a  large  number 
of  men  have  to  be  considered,  unless  you  are  thinking  about  simply 
making  a  gift,  which  is  unjustified  and  unjustifiable,  whatever  you  do 
can  only  affect  a  limited  number  directly,  but  it  affects  the  whole 
body  of  them  by  relieving  the  pressure  all  along  the  line. 

Air.  XICHOLS.  It  helps  everybody  in  that  way — soldiers  and  every- 
body else. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  It  does,  because  if  we  only  help  5  per  cent  of  these 
soldiers  to  employment,  or  if  you  only  help  5  per  cent  of  them  to 
secure  homes,  in  helping  them  you  would  relieve  the  pressure  all  along 
the  line,  industrially  and  agriculturally,  and  you  would  relieve  it  to 
an  extent  that  would  be  of  very  great  value.  Of  course,  my  friend 
must  remember  this :  It  is  very  easy  to  criticize  a  particular  proposi- 
tion. It  is  often  not  so  easy  to  suggest  something  in  the  place  of  it. 
Now,  there  are  two  things  that  this  committee  must  determine;  the 
first  one  is,  should  anything  be  done  within  the  jurisdiction  of  this 
committee  which  will  be  useful  and  helpful  to  such  soldiers  as  care 
to  take  advantage  of  the  opportunities  offered?  That  is  the  first 
question.  If  the  committee  determines  that  the  situation  does  not 
demand  any  aid  or  any  assistance  or  any  effort  on  the  part  of  the 
Federal  Government  within  the  lines  of  its  jurisdiction,  then  it  should 
not  do  anything  and  should  drop  the  matter  entirely.  If.  on  the 
other  hand,  the  committee  determine  that  something  should  be  done, 
it  must  consider  this  or  some  other  definite  and  concrete  thing  within 
its  jurisdiction. 

Xo\v.  there  may  be  people  who  think  that,  while  we  are  not  an  in- 
dustrial country,  we  ought  to  go  into  the  matter  of  industrial  hous- 
ing. We  have  had  a  rather  sorry  experience  of  that  very  recently, 
but  there  are  people  who  may  think  we  ought  to  do  that.  That  ques- 
tion does  not  come  before  this  committee.  It  is  not  a  matter  for 
consideration  by  this  committee.  There  are  folks  who  may  think  that 
we  ought  to  give  a  bonus  to  all  the  soldiers — a  very  few,  I  hope.  That 
is  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of  this  committee.  There  may  be  people 
who  think  we  ought  to  make  loans  to  soldiers  as  a  preferred  class, 
enabling  them  to  go  out  here  and  there  to  buv  farms.  That  is  not  a 
matter  that  comes  before  this  committee.  That  belongs  to  the  com- 
mittee that  has  to  do  with  the  banking  and  currency  and  with  the 
farm-loan  act,  and  while  it  might  be  possible  for  this  committee  to 


612  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

torture  this  bill — and  I  use  that  term  advisedly,  because  it  would  be 
a  torturing  of  it  outside  of  its  jurisdiction — to  make  a  provision  on  it 
with  regard  to  loans  purely  for  the  purchase  of  isolated  or  segregated 
tracts,  the  committee  would  hardly  be  justified  in  doing  that,  even 
though  it  might  think  there  was  some  good  reason  for  it  being  done 
by  the  committee  which  has  jurisdiction  over  it. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Now,  Mr.  Mondell 

Mr.  MONDELL  (interposing).  Mr.  Nichols,  let  me  go  just  a  little 
further.  If  we  are  to  afford  these  opportunities  in  settlements,  which 
we  think  is  the  only  way  of  affording  the  opportunities,  it  neces- 
sarily means  that  you  are  to  take  areas  that  are  not  now  utilized  to 
the  extent  that  they  could  be  or  should  be  utilized.  There  are  areas 
in  the  country  that  are  exceedingly  fertile,  that  are  subject  to  occa- 
sional or  annual  overflows.  We  are  helping  in  protecting  those  lands 
under  the  levee  act  and  under  the  flood-control  act.  Under  this  bill 
a  project  of  that  kind  could  be  undertaken  that  would  make  useful 
and  highly  productive  an  area  which  for  the  present  is  only  utilized, 
if  at  all.  in  an  indifferent  way  for  pasturage  during  a  part  of  the 
season.  There  are,  I  am  told,  various  areas  of  considerable  size  in 
Massachusetts  where  lands  have  been  abandoned  where,  with  the 
expenditure  of  a  reasonable  amount  of  money  in  restoring  those 
lands,  they  could  be  made  attractive  and  useful  and  furnish  farm 
homes  on  which  men  could  make  a  very  good  living.  I  am  told, 
and  I  am  quite  sure,  there  are  cut-over  areas  and  partly  swamped 
as  well  as  cut-over  lands  in  Minnesota  and  in  Michigan  which  by 
the  removal  of  the  stumps  and  roots,  and  with  some  drainage  and 
possibly  with  some  fertilization  could  be  made  very  productive  and 
the  home  of  a  prosperous  community.  There  are,  I  think,  areas  of 
that  sort  in  practically  every  State  in  the  Union,  with  the  possible 
exception  of  a  State  like  Illinois,  which  is  a  wonderfully  blessed 
Commonwealth  with  very  little  swamp  and  no  cut-over  land,  and 
in  the  main  subject  to  cultivation  as  it  stands. 

I  do  not  know  that  Iowa  wrould  furnish  an  area  of  this  kind.  I  am 
sure  that  Indiana  could,  and  I  am  very  confident  that  most  of  the 
other  States  of  the  Union  would  furnish  such  areas.  They  would 
furnish  employment,  in  the  first  place,  to  those  who  seek  that  kind 
of  employment,  and  by  so  doing  they  would  relieve  the  pressure 
everywhere.  It  is  not  necessary  to  furnish  employment  under  ordi- 
nary conditions,  or  even  under  extraordinary  conditions,  to  all  the 
population  of  the  country  in  order  to  relieve  conditions  of  unemploy- 
ment, because  even  under  the  most  trying  conditions  the  percentage 
of  men  unemployed  is  always  comparatively  small,  and  it  is  the 
unemployed  man 'and  not  the  employed  man  you  need  to  put  to  work. 
So  you  would  employ  men,  and  in  employing  them  relieve  the  pres- 
sure all  along  the  line  on  the  man  in  industry  against  the  pressure 
to  lower  his  wages  and  also  on  the  man  on  the  farm.  Then,  in 
addition  to  that,  you  put  the  soldier  to  work  where  he  has  the  incen- 
tive to  save,  free  from  the  temptations  of  the  city,  where  it  is  difficult 
to  save,  with  all  of  the  encouragement  that  men  have  when  they  see 
a  coveted  goal  directly  before  them,  and  particularly  the  incentive 
that  comes  to  men  who  work  together  in  communities  with  a  com- 
mon purpose.  We  have  seen  that  ever  since  men  first  landed  here, 
and  it  has  gone  on  clear  through  to  the  Pacific  coast.  Men  have 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  613 

developed  and  men  have  cut  the  forests  and  drained  the  swamps 
and  leveled  the  rough  land  in  communities. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Mr.  Mondell,  I  would  like  to  ask  you  a  couple  more 
questions.  You  say  the  Government  is  not  called  upon  to  help  the 
great  majority  of  the  soldiers,  or  at  least  I  so  understood  you. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  condition  in  the  country 
that  demands  that  the  Government  as  a  government  shall  furnish 
employment  or  furnish  opportunities  for  the  great  majority  of 
American  citizens.  If  there  were  such  a  condition,  we  would  be  in  a 
bad  way,  and  we  could  not  legislate  here  in  this  committee  to  help  it. 
The  returning  soldier  is  a  part  of  our  general  citizenship.  Four  out  of 
five  of  the  soldiers  return  to  the  body  of  our  citizenship  with  all  the 
marvelous  opportunities  of  America  before  them,  expecting  nothing 
except  that  they  shall  be  protected  in  their  rights,  in  their  lives  and 
liberty,  and  in  the  pursuit  of  happiness. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  But  you  believe  the  Government  is  called  upon  to 
help  the  soldier  who  wants  to  go  on  a  farm? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  think  the  Government  is  called  upon,  first,  to  a 
certain  extent  at  least,  to  make  and  afford  opportunities  of  employ- 
ment. I  voted  for  an  increase  of  the  roadbuilding  fund,  as  I  have 
no  doubt  the  gentleman  from  Michigan  did,  on  that  theory,  and  on 
that  theory  alone,  nearly  as  much  in  one  year,  or  much  more  in  one 
year,  than  we  are  expecting  to  expend  in  a  year  under  these  projects. 
That  appropriation  was  made  on  the  theory  that  we  needed  to  furnish 
employment. 

Mr.  XICHOLS.  In  this  measure — 

Mr.  MONDELL  (continuing).  Just  let  me  finish  answering  your 
question,  if  you  will.  So  I  do  think  that  while  the  condition  is  not 
likely  to  be  as  acute  as  to  unemployment  as  at  one  time  we  anticipated, 
still  there  is  a  probability  of  a  condition  of  unemployment  that  will 
require  this  additional  assistance  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment. That  much  for  a  beginning.  Then,  in  addition  to  that,  I 
think,  in  view  of  the  fact  we  no  longer  have  the  boundless  free  lands 
and  cheap  lands  of  the  West  available  for  these  returning  men, 
we  should  furnish  such  of  them  as  desire  opportunities  other  than 
those  afforded  to  them  the  opportunities  that  we  present  under  this 
bill.  I  do  not  think,  as  I  said  earlier  in  my  discussion,  that  the  man 
who  is  going  into  the  industrial  centers  at  the  very  good  wages  now 
prevailing  feels  that  the  Federal  Government  owes  anything  to  him. 
He  is  taking  advantage  of  good  wages  amid  conditions  that  are  most 
satisfactory,  in  the  main,  for  he  has  all  of  the  opportunities  afforded 
him  by  organized  society,  has  all  the  pleasures  that  come  to  a  man 
who  lives  in  the  midst  of  churches  and  schools  and  picture  shows  and 
all  those  things  that  go  to  make  life  agreeable  in  an  industrial  center. 

Mr.  XICIIOLS.  Is  any  unusual  opportunity  offered  in  this  bill  to  the 
soldier  who  desires  to  go  on  the  farm  ? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  An  opportunity  is  offered  to  him. 

Mr.  XICIIOLS.  Unusual? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  think  that  a  soldier  could  go  to  work  in  a  factory, 
and  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  many  of  them  will  at  the  present  high 
wages,  having  in  mind  the  building  of  a  home  in  the  city  or  the 
purchase  of  a  home  in  the  country.  Such  a  soldier' will  save  a  large 
part  of  his  wages  and  will  arrive  at  the  home-owning  condition  we 


614  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

are  trying  to  establish  through  this  bill.  But  there  are  other  sol- 
diers who  will  not  do  that,  and  we  afford  such  soldiers  an  opportunity 
to  work  on  a  project  and  to  become  a  part  of  it  and  secure  the  bene- 
fit of  the  preference  that  accrues  by  working  on  the  project. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Mr.  Mondell,  you  spoke  antagonistically  of  the  idea 
of  a  special  privilege  for  all  the  soldiers.  I  want  to  ask  you  if  you 
do  not  think  it  is  the  highest  type  of  special  privilege  when  you  pro- 
pose to  assist  in  an  unusual  way,  as  you  say,  only  those  soldiers  who 
propose  to  go  upon  the  land. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  The  opportunity  is  open  to  every  man  under  the 
Flag. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  But  you  know  they  can  not  all  take  advantage  of  it. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Any  man  can  take  advantage  of  it  who  wants  to. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  No;  if  3,000,000  of  them  took  advantage  of  it  you 
say  the  Government  could  not  do  it. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Well,  but  those  who  want  to  can  take  advantage  of 
it.  The  majority  of  the  men,  the  men  in  your  city,  working  at  high 
salaries  in  factories,  they  are  doing  better  than  they  would  do  on 
one  of  these  projects,  from  their  point  of  view.  They  do  not  want 
to  live  in  the  country.  They  want  to  live  near  the  bright  lights. 
They  want  the  high  wages  and  the  abundant  opportunities  of  the 
city ;  but  if  they  wanted  to  go  out  and  secure  an  opportunity  to  have 
a  farm  home  the  opportunity  would  be  granted  to  them,  and  no- 
body is  given  anything  under  this  act  except  an  opportunity.  Your 
argument,  if  I  may  suggest  it,  is  the  very  same  argument  that  was 
made  against  the  nomestead  law.  Mr.  Buchanan  said,  "  Why  give 
men  farms  out  West  free?  You  do  not  do  anything  for  the  man 
who  remains  at  home,  in  his  own  neighborhood,  who  takes  no  chance, 
who  lives  where  he  is  comfortable,  who  does  not  want  to  subject  him- 
self to  any  unusual  hardship  or  make  any  unusual  effort.  You  do 
not  do  anything  for  him,"  said  Mr.  Buchanan,  "  and  therefore  you 
should  not  do  anything  for  the  man  who  is  willing  on  account  of  his 
desire  to  secure  a  home  to  take  advantage  of  an  offered  opportunity ;" 
but  we  thought  differently  and  we  passed  the  homestead  law.  That 
has  been  the  argument  that  has  been  made  ever  since  against  oppor- 
tunities for  men  to  secure  homes  on  the  farm ;  that  you  ought  to  give 
a  man  an  opportunity  to  enjoy  all  the  blessings  and  all  of  the  oppor- 
tunities of  the  surroundings  that  most  please  him,  and  then,  at  the 
same  time,  give  him  all  of  the  advantages  that  may  come  to  the  man 
who  is  willing  to  make  an  unusual  effort. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Of  course,  when  you  take  us  back  to  Mr.  Buchanan, 
you  are  taking  us  back  a  long  time,  as  you  have  done  several  times 
to-day,  and  you  are  taking  us  back  to  conditions  that  do  not  exist 
to-day.  In  refering  to  the  city,  Mr.  Mondell,  you  spoke  several 
times  of  the  bright  lights.  Now,  you  do  not  believe  that  every  sol- 
dier who  returns  from  the  war  and  decides  that  he  will  make  his 
living  in  the  city  is  lured  only  by  the  so-called  bright  lights  that  you 
refer  to. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  There  is  a  lure,  and  it  is  a  lure  that  attracts  all 
men.  to  remain  in  the  comfort  and  security  and  certainty  of  settled 
and  developed  communities.  There  are  the  churches,  the  schools,  the 
lyceums,  the  lecture  courses,  the  opportunities  for  constant  com- 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  615 

munications  with  your  fellow  men,  the  pleasures  of  enjoying  all  of  the 
institutions  of  a  prosperous  and  highly  developed  community.  It 
is  a  lure. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  And  the  industrial  activity 

Mr.  MONDELL  (continuing).  And  the  picture  shows  simply  adds 
one  more  attraction,  and  we  sometimes  refer  to  it  as  illustrating  the 
attraction,  but  the  attractions  are  many. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  And  they  are  also  attracted  by  the  industrial  ac- 
tivity and  because  it  is  more  to  their  liking. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Well,  men  prefer  to  make  a  sure  and  secure  $4  or  $5 
or  $6  or  $7  a  day  in  a  factory  than  to  take  their  chances  on  the  grow- 
ing of  a  crop  that  may  be  cut  by  the  chinch  bug  or  destroyed  by  the 
drought. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  thank  you  for  your  elucidation  of  that  remark  of 
yours,  because  I  thought  it  was  rather  sarcastic. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  It  was  not  intended  to  be  so. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Mr.  Mondell,  I  gather  from  your  statement  and  the 
opinions  you  have  expressed — I  have  only  heard  a  small  part  of  your 
testimony,  I  am  very  sorry  to  say — that  these  industrial  activities 
and  high  wages  now  being  paid  are  such  that  the  opportunities  pre- 
sented by  this  measure  if  it  becomes  a  law,  will  attract  more  from 
the  country  than  from  the  cit}' ;  is  that  the  idea  ? 

Mr.  MONDELL.  No;  I  do  not  think  that  necessarily  follows.  It  is 
true,  I  think,  perhaps,  although  I  do  not  know.  I  never  saw  any 
statistics  and  I  do  not  imagine  that  any  are  available,  but  I  assume 
it  may  be  true  that  more  men  who  at  one  time  or  another  have  lived 
on  a  farm  return  to  farms  than  those  from  the  towns  and  cities. 
HoAvever,  some  of  the  best  farmers  I  have  known  have  been  men  who 
grew  to  maturity  and  even  to  middle  age  in  a  city  or  a  town  and 
who  had  no  acquaintance  with  farming  up  to  that  time.  Many  men 
get  tired  of  the  largely  artificial  life  of  a  city  or  a  large  community. 
So  that  as  to  a  thing  of  this  kind  I  do  not  know  whether  a  majority 
of  the  people  who  would  take  advantage  of  it  would  be  men  who 
had  lived  on  farms  or  men  who  had  lived  in  the  cities. 

If  I  were  to  venture  a  guess.  I  should  say  that  there  would  be  as 
many,  if  not  more,  men  who  are  now  in  cities  and  large  towns,  and 
who  would  remain  in  large  towns  except  for  an  opportunity  like  this, 
than  there  would  be  of  men  from  the  country,  because  I  do  not  antici- 
pate that  the  ordinary  country  boy  who  is  going  to  inherit  his  father's 
farm  or  some  part  of  it  is  probably  going  to  seek  this  opportunity. 
The  opportunities  in  their  own  community  appeal  to  a  great  many 
country  boys.  They  have  friends  who  know  them  so  well  that  they 
can  secure  extraordinary  opportunities  in  the  matter  of  borrowing 
and  starting  with  but  little  in  their  own  locality.  Some  of  these 
same  men,  particularly  from  your  country  and  from  the  mid-W«->t. 
generally  would  seek  opportunities  on  the  newer  lands  of  the  West 
and  Middle  West;  so  if  I  were  to  venture  a  guess,  I  should  say  that 
more  men  would  be  attracted  by  this  opportunity  who  are  now  in 
cities  and  in  large  towns  than  men  who  are  now  on  and  about  farms. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Now,  I  would  like  to  ask  you  this  question,  making  it 
as  brief  as  I  can :  Instead  of  taking  the  instance  suggested  by  yourself 
of  a  son  of  one  of  these  farmers  who  might  inherit  his  father's  prop- 


616  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

crty,  let  us  take  a  case  like  this  which  might  exist  in  1 0.000  instances, 
where  he  will  not  inherit  his  father's  farm  on  account  of  having-  a 
large  family  or  misfortune  overtaking  him  for  100  different  reasons, 
over  which  the  man  would  have  no  control 

Mr.  TAYLOR  (interposing).  Or  the  son  of  a  tenant  farmer? 

Mr.  WHITE.  Yes;  or  the  son  of  a  farm  owner  who  might  not  inherit 
his  father's  farm  on  account  of  having  a  large  family,  or  through  sick- 
ness or  through  a  number  of  reasons  which  I  do  not  care  to  enumerate, 
and  this  soldier  boy  wants  to  take  advantage  of  the  very  conditions 
you  have  delineated  here  so  faithfully,  but  has  not  the  capital,  and 
who,  possibly  without  any  stretch  of  imagination,  would  have  to  go  to 
the  city  or  would,  be  inclined  to  go  there,  yet  would  much  rather  settle 
on  40  acres  of  land  or  80  acres  of  land  that  are  unused,  as  there  are 
existing  in  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  of  cases,  the  productivity 
of  which  land  is  well  established,  and  in  a  locality  where  the  boy  is 
thoroughly  familiar  with  the  conditions  and  will  have  the  counsel  of 
his  father  and  his  friends,  coming  back  with  enlarged  ideas,  stimu- 
lated ambitions 

Mr.  MAYS  (interposing).  And  where  his  mother-in-law  lives. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Yes;  or  where  she  will  live  when  he  marries  the  girl. 
From  the  standpoint  of  solvency,  Mr.  Mondell,  would  the  Government 
be  as  safe  in  lending  that  boy  the  percentage  that  might  be  fixed  by 
law — and  I  will  include  another  question  if  you  will  pardon  me — 
would  his  prospects  of  success  be  equal  to  those  who  moved  to  a  project 
Avhich  to  him  would  be  problematical  and  experimental. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  I  will  be  as  brief  as  I  can  and  try  to  answer  that 
question.  I  think  the  earlier  part  of  my  statement/before  you  cams 
in,  covered  in  a  way  the  thoughts  that  you  have  raised  by  your  ques- 
tion and  the  conditions  that  you  have  suggested.  The  farmer  boy 
who  does  not  want  to  leave  the  home  neighborhood  is  like  the  farmer 
boy  who  has  stayed  at  home  while  all  of  his  brothers  have  gone  West 
in  years  past.  If  he  is  the  right  kind  of  a  farmer  boy  and  wants  to 
buy  a  farm  in  that  locality,  there  are  abundant  opportunities  for  him 
to  get  credit.  He  is  known ;  men  are  acquainted  with  his  ability  and 
his  honesty  and  his  stability  of  purpose  and  his  industry,  and  there 
are  a  thousand  hands  held  out  to  him  in  the  way  of  aid  and  assist- 
ance of  one  sort  and  another  in  acquiring  property  in  the  community 
or  near  where  he  is  known.  Now,  when  the  Federal  Government  or 
any  government  legislates  with  a  view  to  assisting  that  man  who  is 
to  carve  out  his  own  fortune,  who  will  be  under  no  supervision,  who 
will  have  no  advice  from  those  interested,  from  the  governmental 
standpoint,  it  has  not  been  deemed  safe  to  depart  from  the  purely 
business  view  that  has  developed  with  regard  to  that  kind  of  loans. 
We  passed  a  farm-loan  act,  the  purpose  of  which  was  to  help  that 
kind  of  a  boy. 

It  is  possible  that  the  farm-loan  act  is  not  sufficiently  liberal  or  it 
might  be  made  more  liberal  than  it  now  is,  safely,  as  applied  to  people 
generally.  I  do  not  know  as  to  that.  That  is  a  matter  that  is  beyond 
the  jurisdiction  of  this  committee,  in  any  event.  As  I  suggested,  it 
is  possible  that  the  farm-loan  act  might  be  so  amended  as  to  afford 
loans  to  soldiers  up  to  100  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  property  they 
purchase.  In  my  opinion  that  would  be  unwise  from  my  viewpoint. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  617 

The  CHAIRMAN.  One  moment ;  I  would  like  to  state  to  the  committee 
that  I  have  just  been  informed  that  the  previous  question  is  being  put 
on  the  wire-control  bill. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Just  one  word  in  conclusion.  In  my  opinion  you 
can  not  enter  upon  that  sort  of  enterprise  with  any  hope  or  expecta- 
tion of  success.  I  do  not  think  that  in  the  great  majority  of  cases 
you  would  either  do  the  man  a  kindness  or  do  an  act  which  you  could 
justify.  You  would  find,  as  Australia  did,  that  such  attempts  to  aid 
were  failures. 

As  I  suggested  during  the  early  part  of  my  discussion  there  are 
many  States  in  this  Unicn  that  are  strong  and  powerful  and  that  have 
funds  at  their  command.  There  is  a  splendid  opportunity  for  all 
of  the  States  to  enter  upon  just  that  kind  of  enterprise  and  do  just 
that  tiling.  I  do  not  know  why  they  should  not  do  it,  if  they  think 
it  is  safe.  It  has  been  suggested  that  the  Federal  Government  might 
provide,  through  the  farm  loan  act  for  a  larger  loan  on  property 
than  now,  in  the  case  of  soldiers,  the  State  to  furnish  a  certain  per- 
centage of  the  money  and  the  Government,  which  furnished  the 
greater  portion  of  the  money,  to  have  the  superior  lien.  If  under 
the  farm  loan  act  the  States  and  the  Government  want  to  enter  into 
that  kind  of  an  agreement,  there  may  be  some  argument  for  it.  I 
do  not  think  it  would  be  wise.  I  do  not  think  it  would  work  out.  I 
do  not  think  it  would  help  the  soldier  in  the  long  run,  but  that  is 
not  before  this  committee. 

Mr.  WHITE.  That  is  very  interesting,  Mr.  Mondell,  and  I  am 
pleased  to  have  this  a  matter  of  record,  and  I  am  glad  you  have 
elucidated  your  ideas  on  that  subject. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  make  the  statement 
that  there  has  been  a  whole  lot  of  concern  expressed  here  for  the  man 
who  wants  to  live  in  his  own  neighborhood.  I  have  listened  pa- 
tiently to  those  expressions,  and  I  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  concern  is  not  so  much  for  the  soldier  as  it  is  for  the  community 
where  he  lives  at  the  present  time.  I  actually  believe  that  these 
projects  when  they  are  started-  will  appeal  to  the  venturesome  spirit 
of  these  men  and  they  will  want  to  leave,  the  big  majority  of  them, 
and  will  take  up  a  project  of  this  kind.  I  think  that  would  be  true 
in  my  case. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  are  very  much  obliged  to  you,  Mr.  Mondell, 
for  your  statement. 

Mr.  MONDELL.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  beg  your  pardon  for  having  taken 
up  so  much  of  your  time,  and  I  am  under  very  great  obligation 
to  the  committee. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Mr.  Chairman,  is  it  understood  that  the  hearings  will 
absolutely  be  closed  on  Saturday? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  was  moved  and  carried  at  the  meeting  yester- 
day that  we  would  meet  to-day  and  adjourn  until  Saturday,  and  it 
was  understood  that  after  hearing  the  delegation  from  New  York  on 
Saturday  the  hearings  would  be  closed. 

(The  committee  thereupon  adjourned  until  Saturday,  January  21, 
1919,  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.) 


618  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

COMMITTEE  ON  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS, 

HOUSE  OF  KEPRESENTATIVES, 

Saturday,  June  21,  1919. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Nicholas  J.  Sinnott 
(chairman)  presiding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen,  we  have  met  this  morning  in  pursuance 
to  a  request  from  Mr.  Titus,  of  New  York,  asking  that  a  delegation 
from  New  York  be  heard  this  morning,  and,  in  accordance  with  the 
order  made  the  other  day,  we  will  hear  these  gentlemen  and  close 
the  hearings  to-day.  Mr.  Titus,  who  is  here  to  give  testimony  on 
behalf  of  your  delegation  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  we 
have  with  us  Mr.  John  D.  Miller,  of  Susquehanna.  Pa. ;  Mr.  Charles  D. 
Porter,  of  Orleans  County,  N.  Y. ;  and  Mr.  F.  A.  Saulsbury.  of  On- 
tario County,  N.  Y. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  wish  each  of  them  to  be  heard,  or  will 
some  one  speak  for  the  entire  delegation  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  think  that  each  one  of  these  gentlemen  would  like  to 
say  a  few  words. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then  we  will  be  glad  to  hear  you. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  ELWOOD  V.  TITUS,  PRESIDENT  OF  THE 
NASSAU  COUNTY  (N.  Y.)  FARM  BUREAU  ASSOCIATION. 

Mr.  TITUS.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  Public  Lands  Com- 
mittee, I  represent  the  New  York  State  Federation  of  Farm  Bureaus, 
composed  of  upward  of  60,000  members,  who  are  real  farmers  of  the 
State,  and  individually  I  represent  the  Nassau  County  Farm  Bureau 
Association  and  the  Suffolk  County  Farm  Bureau  Association.  Suf- 
folk County,  as  you  gentlemen  know,  is  on  the  eastern  end  of  Long 
Island.  We  appear  here  in  opposition  to  the  Mondell  bill,  calling  for 
the  expenditure  of  several  millions  of  dollars  in  the  reclamation  of 
swamp  and  arid  lands  to  provide  homes  for  the  soldiers.  But  at  the 
outset  I  want  to  explain  to  you  my  attitude  in  this  matter.  My  desire 
is  to  do  everything  possible  for  the  soldiers,  and,  in  fact,  I  yield  to 
no  one  in  my  desire  to  do  everything  possible  to  aid  those  heroic  and 
patriotic  young  men  of  this  county,  many  of  whom  sacrificed  their 
lives,  and  others  of  whom  risked  their  lives  in  order  that  you  and  I 
might  live,  and  that  this  Government  of  the  people,  for  the  people, 
and  by  the  people  should  not  perish  from  the  earth.  I  want  you  to 
understand  that.  I  am  here,  perhaps,  with  an  open  mind,  but  on  gen- 
eral principles  we  are  opposed  to  the  expenditure  of  this  vast  sum  of 
money,  especially  at  this  time,  when,  as  you  know,  we  are  burdened 
with  a  tremendous  war  debt.  Another  thing  I  wish  to  say  to  you  is 
this:  How  many  of  those  soldiers  do  you  suppose  want  to  go  bark 
on  the  farm  ?  From  a  copy  of  the  hearings  that  your  illustrious  chair- 
man sent  me,  I  note  that  some  52,000  replied  that  they  did.  Is  that 
right,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  was  the  number  at  that  time. 

Mr.  TITUS.  They  said  they  wanted  to  go  back  on  the  farms.  Now, 
what  does  that  mean?  Personally  I  am~ opposed,  and  I  believe  that 
you  gentleman  are,  to  undertaking  to  put  upon  the  farms  any  man 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  619 

who  has  not  had  some  farm  training  or  some  agricultural  experience. 
Most  of  you  gentlemen,  I  take  it,  know  what  it  means  to  go  on  a  farm 
and  milk  the  cows  and  do  all  that  sort  of  work  for  365  days  in  the 
year.  Sundays  and  all.  I  tell  you  that  there  are  very  few  men  in  this 
country  to-day  that  are  willing  to  put  up  with  that,  notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  we  have  modern  milking  machines  and  all  those  other 
modern  appliances.  There  is  another  thing:  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  in 
the  Middle  West  to-day  farmers  are  clamoring  for  help  to  aid  them 
in  harvesting  the  bumper  crop  of  wheat  and  other  cereals,  and  is  it 
not  a  fact  that  they  can  not  get  the  help?  They  are  offering,  as  I 
understand  it,  from  fifty  to  one  hundred  dollars  per  month  and  board, 
and  yet  if  you  will  go  into  these  big  cities  you  will  find  that  there  are 
thousands  of  men  walking  around,  big  husky  fellows  in  uniform,  just 
returned  from  across  the  seas,  who  will  not  go  out  upon  the  farms. 
That  is  the  condition  that  prevails  in  my  own  home  town  to-day. 
Our  farmers  are  seeking  help,  and  in  our  home  village  there  are  great 
husky  men  walking  around  with  the  uniform  on.  with  the  idea,  judg- 
ing from  their  expressions,  that  the  world  owes  them  a  living  without 
work.  Now.  no  one  would  object  to  such  a  plan,  and  I  say  that  I 
favor  this  country  or  this  Government  offering  every  inducement  pos- 
sible to  aid  in  the  location  of  the  soldiers  upon  farms,  if  they  want 
to  go  there  and  know  something  about  it.  HowT  many  of  these  men 
will  make  failures?  They  are  simply  replying  to  questions  that  are 
put  to  them.  The  answer,  "  Yes ;  I  would  like  to  farm,"  carries  but 
little  weight  with  me.  How  many  men  start  out  and  make  a  living 
on  farms  who  have  not  had  any  agricultural  training?  You  know 
that  from  XeAv  York  City  many  millionaires  have  gone  out  on  Long 
Island  to  engage  in  the  poultry  business  and  in  the  dairy  business. 
Of  course.  99  per  cent  of  them  make  failures. 

I  know  of  many  men  who  have  gone  into  that  locality  and  who  have 
spent  thousands  of  dollars  upon  poultry  plants,  hoping  to  have  a  few 
hens  and  collect  a  few  hundred  eggs  every  day  and  sell  them  for  $1 
per  dozen,  or  something  like  that.  Now,  these  are  the  reasons  why  we 
oppose  this  bill :  We  believe  that  it  is  unbusinesslike ;  we  believe  that 
it  is  impracticable,  and  we  do  not  believe  that  any  private  individual 
would  finance  any  such  scheme  as  this,  because  of  the  fact  that  the  re- 
sults from  it  would  be  so  problematical.  Therefore  we  believe  that  it 
is  unbusinesslike  and  impracticable  for  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment to  take  up  a  scheme  like  this  and  spend  vast  sums  of  money 
upon  it.  especially  at  this  time.  We  further  claim  that  if  there  is  any 
desire  for  lands  on  the  part  of  soldiers,  there  are  sufficient  lands  for 
them  without  spending  so  much  money  for  their  reclamation.  Is  it 
not  a  fact  that  in  New  York  State  and  in  Xow  England  there  are 
hundreds,  and  I  guess  thousands  of  abandoned  farms  that  can  be 
bought  to-day  for  25  per  cent  less  than  the  original  dwelling  houses 
on  those  places  cost. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  Xew  York  State? 

Mr.  TITUS.  In  Xew  York  State.  I  think,  and  in  New  England  as 
well.  The,  Department  of  Agriculture,  I  think,  has  put  out  a  docu- 
ment W7ith  a  statement  as  to  the  farms  for  sale  in  Xew  York  State. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  this  [indicating]  the  document? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  have  a  copy  of  it  at  home.  Yes ;  that  is  one.  What  is 
the  date  of  that? 


620  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  December,  1915. 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  think  that  is  about  the  date  of  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  list  shows  that  there  is  a  great  deal  of  idle 
land  in  the  State  of  New  York. 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir.  Now,  take  the  Middle  West  and  the  South- 
west, and  the  Yazoo  Valley  in  Mississippi.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  that 
is  the  most  fertile  land  in  this  country,  possibly  with  the  exception  of 
the  Imperial  Valley  in  California  ?  My  contention  is  that  there  is  no- 
necessity  for  this  bill,  involving  this  unusual  expenditure  of  money. 
That  is  all  I  have  to  say. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Referring  to  the  lands  you,  spoke  about  in  the  State  of 
New  York,  could  they,  with  moderate  expense,  be  made  profitable 
for  agriculture? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  believe  that  they  could.  If  you  will  permit  me  to  say 
further,  as  I  understand  it,  the  provisions  of  this  bill  call  for  certain 
centralized  settlements  or  communities.  It  calls  for  a  community 
plan,  does  it  not?  Now,  I  question  the  wisdom  of  this  Government 
going  into  settlement  work. 

Mr.  WHITE.  You  answered  my  question  very  satisfactorily,  and  I 
would  like  to  ask  one  more,  if  you  will  pardon  me :  Why  do  you  think 
that  lands  which  are  under  cultivation  and  which  are  so  very  valuable 
now,  and  upon  which  the  profits  are  said  to  be  quite  satisfactory,  are 
not  in  demand?  Why  does  there  seem  to  be  no  demand  for  those 
lands? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Why  is  it? 

Mr.  WHITE.  Yes. 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  admit  that  some  of  those  farms  are  somewhat  iso- 
lated. They  are  over  a  mile  away  from  public  schools,  social  activi- 
ties, and  all  that ;  but  in  all  my  experience  I  never  saw  a  good  farm 
lying  in  a  city.  I  never  saw  a  farm  in  a  city  that  was  good  for 
anything,  and  I  always  thought  that  farms  belonged  in  the  country. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  is  a  good  deal  of  idle  land  in  your  own 
county  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir ;  some. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  On  the  plains  there,  or  on  what  are  called  the 
plains  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  are  idle  farm  lands  all  through  the  State 
of  New  York? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Especially  on  what  is  called  the  Volusia  soil. 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  have  been  run  down  on  account  of  poor 
farming  and  neglect? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Very  largely. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  what  this  bulletin  issued  by  your  State 
agricultural  department  states,  and  I  get  that  also  from  the  United 
States  Department  of  Agriculture. 

Mr.  TITUS.  Permit  me  to  say  further  that  I  have  had  information 
from  a  very  authoritative  source  that  within  two  hours  ride  of  the 
city  of  New  York  there  are  over  4,000,000  acres  of  tillable  land 
available,  and  that  one  and  a  third  million  of  those  acres  are  ready 
for  the  plow  to-day. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  621 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  could  those  lands  be  purchased  for? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  have  no  idea.  For  instance,  you  take  lands  on  Long 
Island  that  are  not  so  expensive — I  might  say  in  the  vicinity  of 
Hicksville — have  you  been  in  that  vicinity  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  have  been  in  the  vicinity  of  the  city  of  Mineola. 

Mr.  TITUS.  This  is  three  or  four  miles  from  Mineola.  There  was 
a  farm  there  on  which  a  man  planted  205  acres  of  potatoes,  and 
after  the  potatoes  were  up  he  sold  20  acres  of  that  land  for  $15,000. 
Of  course  lands  are  high,  but  that  is  ideal  potato  soil.  Now,  along 
this  line,  why  is  there  a  demand  for  so  much  additional  land  to-day 
to  put  soldiers  on  in  view  of  the  bumper  crops  of  cereals  that  are  in 
sight  for  the  year  1919?  Here  is  a  little  paper  that  the  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture  sends  me  weekly,  which  states  that  there  are 
about  1,200,000  more  brood  sows  in  the  United  States  than  ever 
before,  and  that  the  farmers  have  in  prospect  a  wheat  crop  of 
1,260,000,000  bushels— in  sight  now.  Is  that  right? 

Mr.  WHITE.  The  estimate  is  about  1,000,000,000  bushels.  I  want 
to  ask  you  another  question:  You  do  not  believe  that  your  farmers 
fear  any  competition  that  might  result  from  putting  this  legislation 
into  operation,  do  you? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Personally,  I  have  no  fear  of  it,  because  I  believe  that 
it  will  be  largely  a  failure  on  the  part  of  many  of  them.  As  I  was 
saying,  looking  at  the  large  crops  in  prospect,  that  exemplifies  my 
contention  that  there  is  sufficient  fertile  land  in  this  country  to-day 
to  provide  for  our  100,000,000  inhabitants  and  leave  enough  for 
export. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Let  me  ask  you  another  question:  When  did  this 
decadent  condition  that  you  spoke  of,  when  the  lands  began  to  go 
down,  commence?  Did  it  begin  after  the  Civil  War,  as  a  result  of 
competition  with  the  West  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  would  not  like  to  be  quoted  as  an  authority  on  that 
matter,  but  my  understanding  is  that  it  began  along  in  the  seventies. 
Is  that  right,  Mr.  Porter? 

Mr.  PORTER.  I  think  so. 

Mr.  SAULSBURY.  It  began  in  the  seventies. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  in  the  State  of  New  York  about  215,000 
farms,  averaging  about  102  acres  each. 

Mr.  TITUS.  It  is  about  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  the  average  price  of  those  farms?  Is 
the  average  about  $5,000  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  can  not  say  what  the  average  would  be  for  the  whole 
State. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  your  State  got  its  proportion  of  the  proposed 
appropriation,  it  would  be  about  $10,000,000? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  would  buy  about  2,000  farms  in  your  State? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  that  would  be  a  little  less  than  1  per  c?nt  of 
them? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  do  not  feel  that  that  would  bring  on  any 
undue  or  severe  competition,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Personally  I  do  not  think  so. 


622  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  spoke  about  the  fact  that  you  are  opposed 
to  the  draining  of  swamp  lands  in  the  South  and  the  irrigation  of 
arid  lands.  Now,  this  bill  is  broader  than  that.  This  bill  is  not 
confined  to  swamp  lands  of  the  South  nor  arid  lands  of  the  West, 
but  it  is  proposed  to  construct  a  project  in  each  State,  wherever  there 
is  one  feasible ;  and,  according  to  your  testimony  and  the  testimony 
of  the  bulletin  put  out  by  your  Department  of  Agriculture,  there  is 
a  great  deal  of  land  in  the  State  of  Xew  York  that  might  be  utilized 
for  the  purpose. 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  the  very  cheapest  land  in  the  United  States 
that  might  be  secured  is  in  the  State  of  Xew  York.  This  bulletin 
that  you  have  referred  to.  and  that  was  issued  by  the  department  of 
agriculture  of  the  State  of  Xew  York,  says  this: " 

The  State  needs  more  and  better  farmers,  and  it  is  to  that  class  that  this 
department  particularly  appeals,  and  to  which  the  State  will  give  a  warm 
welcome. 

That  is  true,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir.  I  know  that  there  are  efforts  being  made  by 
organizations  in  the  counties  to  induce  farmers  to  locate  in  the 
several  counties. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then  this  bulletin  states  further — 

In  order  to  supply  the  demand  for  farm  produce,  every  acre  of  land  in  this 
State  capable  of  producing  a  profitable  crop  should  be  under  cultivation,  ami 
undoubtedly  will  be  within  a  few  years. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  are  you  reading  from,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  reading  from  Bulletin  Xo.  78  of  the  depart- 
ment of  agriculture  of  the  State  of  Xew  York.  It  contains  a  list  of 
farms  for  rent  and  sale  in  the  State  of  Xew  York.  It  seems  to  me 
that  your  State  would  be  a  pretty  good  State  in  which  to  take  up 
some 'of  these  lands  and  to  inaugurate  on  them  one  of  these  projects. 
Now,  the  former  Secretary  of  Agriculture,  James  Wilson,  after  a 
tour  of  several  days  through  portions  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
made  this  statement : 

The  cheapest  farm  lands  in  the  United  States  to-day,  with  nearness  to  good 
markets,  the  price  of  land,  and  ;ill  other  farm  conditions  considered,  are  east 
of  the  Alleghenies,  and  the  low-priced  farm  lands  of  New  York  State  are  the 
best  investments  in  America. 

Do  you  agree  with  that? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  bulletin  goes  on  to  say  on  page  436 : 

The  truth  of  Secretary  Wilson's  words  is  becoming  more  and  more  appre- 
ciated by  the  people  of  the  whole  country,  as  shown  l>y  their  requests  for  infor- 
mation and  their  purchases  of  New  York  farms. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  agree  with  that? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  here  a  letter  from  Mr.  E.  R.  Lupton,  presi- 
dent of  the  Suffolk  County  Farm  and  Home  Bureau  Association, 
which  I  would  like  to  submit.  Mr.  Lupton  was  unable  to  be  present. 
Shall  I  read  it? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  623 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  may  read  it. 

RIVERHEAD,  N.  Y.,  June  19,  1919. 
Mr.  E.  V.  TITUS, 

Hotel  Raleigh,  Washington,  D.  C. 

MY  DEAK  MH.  TITUS:  As  I  am  unable  to  attend  the  hearing  at  Washington  on 
the  Lane  plan  for  land  reclamation  for  our  soldiers,  I  am  sending  you  the  fol- 
lowing statement  giving  reasons  why  the  directors  of  the  Suffolk  County  Farm 
and  Home  Bureau  Association  and  a  large  majority  of  its  1,100  members  and 
many  of  the  other  farmers  of  this  vicinity  are  opposed  to  the  plan  as  described 
in  the  newspapers : 

"  1.  The  development  of  new  land,  as  cut-over  swamp  and  arid  land,  is  a  slow 
and  arduous  process  with  a  long  period  of  waiting  and  discouragement  before 
the  land  can  become  productive  and  profitable. 

"  2.  There  is  a  large  element  of  uncertainty  as  to  the  proper  methods  of 
handling  new  laud  to  render  it  productive,  which  the  settler  must  meet  without 
the  guidance  of  an  established  practice  to  be  observed  upon  the  farms  of  suc- 
cessful neighbors. 

"  3.  The  problems  of  the  agriculture  suited  to  irrigated  farms  and  drained 
swamps  are  highly  complex,  require  large  capital  and  are  at  variance  with 
farming  experience,  which  may  have  been  acquired  on  general  farms  through- 
out the  United  States  and  are  therefore  unsuited  to  beginners  in  farming. 

"  4.  The  present  time  is  unsuitable  for  undertaking  such  reclamation  projects, 
because  it  is  the  time  of  highest  cost  for  labor  and  materials  for  the  work  and 
because  the  need  for  food  production  is  immediate  and  greater  than  it  is  likely 
to  be  when  these  farms  begin  to  produce.  The  settler  will  incur  maximum  cost 
of  development  and  begin  to  produce  on  a  declining  price  scale. 

"  5.  There  is  an  abundance  of  good  agricultural  land  in  the  East  and  South 
which  may  be  obtained  at  low  cost  in  terms  of  its  productive  capacity  and  may 
be  quickly  made  productive  by  following  agricultural  practice  well  established 
and  demonstrated  on  successful  farms  near  by.  The  soldiers  might  be  located 
on  these  farms  at  lower  cost  and  with  greater  prospect  of  success." 

The  farmers  of  Suffolk  County  therefore  believe  that  the  expenditure  of  a 
smaller  amount  of  money  in  assisting  our  soldiers  to  establish  themselves  on 
these  so-called  abandoned  farms  of  the  East  and  South — abandoned  only  be- 
cause their  owners  have  failed  to  adapt  them  to  present-day  conditions — will 
do  more  toward  making  successful  and  prosperous  farmers  than  a  much 
greater  expenditure  on  extavagant  reclamation  schemes. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

E.  R.  LUPTON,  President. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  Mr.  Titus,  in  Bulletin  No.  60  of  the  United  States 
Department  of  Agriculture  I  note  this  statement  \vith  reference  to 
these  Volusia  soils  in  the  State  of  New  York,  which  stretch  nearly 
across  the  State : 

In  the  region  occupied  by  the  silt  loam  many  farm  homes  are  abandoned ;  the 
farm  buildings  are  fast  going  to  ruin ;  once  productive  fields  are  abandoned,  so 
far  as  profitable  agriculture  is  concerned.  These  fields  are  growing  up  to  weeds, 
and,  in  a  few  cases,  to  a  second  growth  of  timber,  worthless  except  for  firewood. 
Many  of  these  fields  are  not  even  being  utilized  for  pasturage,  and  the  present 
tenantry  make  only  a  poor  living. 

Then,  on  page  12,  reference  is  made  to  the  increase  in  population 
in  that  section  as  being  something  like  37  per  cent.  On  page  22  they 

say  that — 

These  soils  constitute  some  of  the  cheapest  farm  land  now  on  the  market  in 
the  United  States  and  their  selling  price  in  the  majority  of  cases  is  below  their 
actual  agricultural  value. 

This  bulletin  goes  on  to  say  that  those  lands  are  not  worn-out  soils 
in  any  proper  sense  of  the  word,  but  that,  so  far  as  the  mineral  mat- 
ter of  the  soil  is  concerned,  they  are  abundantly  supplied  with  the 
133319—19 40 


624  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

plant- food  elements  for  the  production  of  good  crops.  It  says  fur- 
ther that  the  proper  management  and  tillage  of  the  soils  requile  tile 
drainage  over  considerable  areas,  etc.  This  bulletin  shows  how  those 
soils  may  be  restored  to  their  original  fertility.  Do  you  agree  with 
all  of  that? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir ;  and  that  is  what  is  claiming  the  attention  of 
many  of  our  scientists  to-day,  as  you  all  know.  They  are  trying  to 
restore  the  fertility  of  worn-out  soils.  May  I  ask  you  if  it  is  not 
a  fact  that  out  in  the  Dakotas  and  in  some  of  the  other  States  out  in 
that  region  there  are  thousands  of  acres  of  valuable  land  that  has 
been  abandoned  by  farmers  who  have  gone  to  Canada? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  know  of  any  such  in  the  Dakotas. 

Mr.  Trrus.  I  have  been  told  that.  It  seems  to  me,  Mr.  Chairman 
and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  that  the  paramount  duty  of  this 
committee  is  to  recommend  a  continuance  of  the  agitation  for  more 
intensive  agriculture  rather  than  extensive  agriculture.  You  know 
as  well  as  I  do  that  in  foreign  countries — England,  Belgium,  Hol- 
land, France,  and  Denmark — the  yields  of  cereals  and  potatoes  are 
just  about  double  what  they  are  in  this  country.  On  potato  soils  in 
England  they  have  grown  potatoes  since  the  occupation  by  the 
Romans.  Now,  why  is  that? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I  understand  it  to  be  the  purpose  of  the  committee 
here  to  work  out  some  feasible  plan  for  aiding  soldiers.  Can  you 
not  give  the  committee  the  benefit  of  your  opinion  or  the  informa- 
tion you  have  on  this  subject,  so  as  to  aid  us  in  working  out  a 
feasible  plan  for  aiding  the  returning  soldiers? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  would  favor  any  effort  on  the  part  of  this  committee 
to  place  any  soldier  upon  a  farm  who  wants  to  go  upon  a  farm. 
I  believe,  as  I  have  said,  and  as  has  been  indicated  by  the  questions 
of  your  chairman,  these  abandoned  farms  could  be  utilized,  and  I 
would  favor  the  expenditure  of  a  small  amount  of  money 

Mr.  JOHNSON  (interposing).  How  much? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  About  how  much  for  each  soldier? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Well,  now,  that  is  something  that  I  have  not  given  any 
thought  to,  and  you  must  excuse  me  from  answering  that.  In  a 
general  way,  however,  I  favor  it.  Now,  there  is  another  thing  to  be 
considered.  Why  are  not  these  soldiers  encouraged  and  assisted  in 
going  into  some  other  kind  of  business  as  well  as  farming? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  We  would  like  to  have  your  ideas  on  that.  We 
want  your  help. 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  am  somewhat  at  sea  on  this  matter,  and  the  most  that 
I  came  for  was  to  oppose  this  vast  expenditure  of  money  at  this 
time,  with  the  burden  that  we  are  under.  With  the  tremendous 
debt  that  we  have,  I  would  oppose  entering  upon  an  impracticable 
and  unbusinesslike  scheme  that  no  private  companies  would  finance. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  In  regard  to  your  statement  that  potatoes  had  been 
grown  on  certain  soils  in  England  since  the  time  of  the  Roman 
occupation,  are  you  not  taking  that  back  too  far?  Is  not  the  potato 
indigenous  to  America  ?  Were  not  potatoes  introduced  into  Eng- 
land after  the  discovery  of  America? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  think  the  potato  originally  came  from  Brazil,  from 
the  top  of  the  Andes  Mountains. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  625 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Well,  that  is  in  America.  You  must  make  a  little 
allowance,  then,  of  about  2,000  years  in  your  reference  to  the  pro- 
duction of  potatoes  in  England  from  the  time  of  the  Roman  occu- 
pation. 

Mr.  TITUS.  Perhaps  I  am  mistaken  there. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  would  like  to  ask  this  question:  I  have  been  won- 
derfully impressed  with  your  statement,  Mr.  Titus,  as  to  the  avail- 
ability of  this  New  York  land  for  farming  purposes,  and  the  letter 
which  you  have  read  into  the  record  strongly  alludes  to  the  propo- 
sition of  segregating  these  settlements.  Having  that  in  mind,  I 
would  like  to  present  this  concrete  question :  You  seem  to  think,  and 
I  am  frank  to  say,  although  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  say,  that 
I  agree  with  you,  that  a  man  who  starts  out  on  a  farm  with  the 
adequate  experience  that  comes  from  a  lifetime  of  training  is  the 
man  who  is  most  likely  to  succeed  on  the  farm,  and  that  where  the 
soldier  has  had  a  farm  training  and  experience  he  presents  to  the 
Government  a  more  solvent  proposition  than  one  who  has  not  had 
that  training? 

Mr.  TITUS.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  WHITE.  If  one  of  those  young  men  in  the  Army  who,  we  will 
say,  is  the  son  of  a  farmer  and  who  has  had  experience  on  a  farm 
all  his  life,  comes  back  here  and  wants  a  farm,  but  has  not  capital 
to  procure  one,  do  you  not  think  it  would  be  a  safe  thing  for  the 
Government  to  lend  him  the  necessary  capital,  or  do  you  not  think 
it  would  be  a  safe  thing  from  the  standpoint  of  solvency? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  would  want  to  put  that  young  man  on  the  witness 
stand  and  question  him. 

Mr.  WHITE.  We  will  say  that  he  has  the  qualities  that  make  for 
success.  If  such  men  were  located  on  those  farms  that  have  been 
abandoned  and  that  promised  profitable  returns,  what  do  you  think 
would  be  the  result? 

Mr.  TITUS.  About  25  per  cent  of  them  would  succeed  and  about  75- 
per  cent  would  fail. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Do  you  think  that  such  a  man  would  give  greater 
promise  of  success  than  he  would  if  he  were  without  any  experience 
in  farming? 

Mr.  TITUS.  By  far;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Would  it  be  possible  for  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
and  some  of  his  assistants  to  exercise  an  intelligent  discretion  in 
securing  men  to  go  upon  those  farms? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  should  certainly  think  that  that  would  be  his  para- 
mount duty. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Then,  if  that  provision  is  made  in  this  bill,  the  bill 
would  not  be  open  to  the  objection  that  it  threw  open  the  door  indis- 
criminately to  incompetent  as  well  as  competent  men? 

Mr.  TITUS.  No,  sir:  provided  you  do  not  undertake  this  scheme  of 
spending  $5,000,000,000 — I  do  not  know  how  much  money  is  in- 
volved, because  when  we  farmers  come  to  the  word  "billion"  we 
become  confused  in  our  heads.  We  do  not  know  where  we  are  at. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Do  you  realize  that  this  bill  does  not  propose  any  gift 
or  gratuity  to  the  soldiers? 

Mr.  TITUS.  We  realize  that. 


626  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  VAILE.  It  proposes  to  sell  lands  on  certain  reasonable  terms. 
Was  that  point  considered  by  your  association  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir.  What  are  the  provisions  of  the  Farm  Loan 
Bank  Act  on  this  subject?  Dp  you  give  much  better  terms  in  your 
bill  than  are  given  in  the  existing  law  ? 

Mr.  VAILE.  That  is  a  question  that  has  been  raised  here. 

Mr.  TITUS.  That  has  been  referred  to. 

Mr.  VAILE.  If  the  Government  gets  back  in  a  few  years  such  money 
as  has  been  invested  in  these  projects,  would  this  bill,  containing 
such  a  provision,  be  objectionable  to  your  association  as  involving 
the  expenditure  of  a  large  amount  of  money? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  am  opposed  to  the  expenditure  of  a  large  amount 
of  money  if  the  situation  does  not  warrant  it.  If  there  is  a  demand 
that  warrants  it,  no  one  would  concur  in  such  a  plan  more  quickly 
than  I. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Do  you  believe  that  there  is  too  much  food  produced 
now? 

Mr.  TITUS.  No,  sir;  not  when  we  have  to  feed  a  lot  of  people 
abroad. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Your  statement  with  regard  to  excessive  crops  is  not 
entire  applicable  to  this  inquiry,  is  it? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Of  course,  when  we  get  back  to  normal  times  that  may 
be  true,  but  we  are  living  now  under  extraordinary  conditions  inci- 
dent to  the  long  war.  When  South  America,  Australia,  and  all  of 
those  countries  get  back  to  normal  conditions,  and  shipping  gets 
back  to  normal  conditions,  the  situation  will  be  different.  What 
would  be  the  price  of  wheat  to-day  if  there  was  not  a  Government 
guaranty  under  such  conditions,  with  no  demand  for  it,  and  with  this 
immense  crop  at  hand  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  Wheat  is  away  above  the  guaranty. 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir ;  but  it  is  due  to  conditions  abroad. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Not  altogether. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Wheat  was  $1  per  bushel  above  the  guaranteed  price 
at  the  time  the  guaranty  was  first  fixed. 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  have  so  much  faith  in  the  American  fanner  that 
I  believe  that  so  long  as  he  has  a  reasonable  show  of  a  fair  profit 
on  his  crops — hogs,  wheat,  corn,  and  everything  else — there  is  no 
danger  of  the  people  starving  to  death. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Your  association  would  be  favorable,  would  it  not,  to  a 
reasonable  expenditure  by  the  Government,  not  in  the  form  of  a  gift, 
but  as  an  investment  to  establish  soldiers  upon  farms  in  your  State, 
would  it  not? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir ;  if  there  was  a  demand  for  it  in  this  State  or 
any  other.  That  would  be  true  if  there  was  a  demand  for  it. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Assuming  that  there  is  such  a  demand  as  that  for  farm 
lands  in  your  own  State,  I  will  ask  you  whether  your  association  has 
such  an  objection  to  the  development  of  lands  in  the  West  and  South 
that  it  would  refuse  to  take  the  benefits  of  this  act  as  applied  to  the 
State  of  New  York? 

Mr.  TITUS.  We  would  make  no  distinction  between  the  East  and 
West.  I  have  seen  the  statement  in  the  papers  that  this  is  to  boom 
the  West,  etc. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  627 

Mr.  VAILE.  I  think  you  are  under  a  mistaken  impression. 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  do  not  think  that  is  true.     I  would  not  say  that. 

Mr.  VAILE.  That  is  what  we  want  to  get  at.  As  the  chairman 
stated  the  other  day,  the  poison  has  been  spread  among  the  people 
that  this  is  a  western  scheme.  They  tell  the  western  people  that  it  is  a 
scheme  to  reclaim  swamp  lands  in  the  South,  and  they  tell  southern 
men  that  it  is  a  scheme  to  reclaim  arid  lands  in  the  West.  They  tell 
eastern  men  that  it  is  a  western  and  southern  scheme  to  reclaim 
swamp  lands  and  irrigate  arid  lands.  Has  your  association  consid- 
ered the  proposition  that  it  applies  equally  to  all  parts  of  the  United 
States? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  will  say  that  our  executive  committee  has  not.  but 
personally  I  have. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Will  you  be  good  enough  to  impress  upon  your  execu- 
tive committee  that  this  does  apply  to  all  parts  of  the  United  States? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  With  reference  to  the  demand  for  more  farm 
produce,  this  bulletin  issued  by  the  department  of  agriculture  of 
the  State  of  New  York  says  that  the  State  is  increasing  in  popula- 
tion about  116,000  annually,  and  then  it  has  this  statement,  which  I 
shall  read : 

In  order  to  supply  the  demand  for  farm  produce,  every  acre  of  land  in  this 
State  capable  of  producing  a  profitable  crop  should  be  under  cultivation,  and 
undoubtedly  will  be  within  a  few  years. 

Bulletin  No.  64,  issued  by  the  United  States  Department  of  Agri- 
culture, refers  to  the  abandoned  farms  in  the  State  of  New  York  in 
this  way: 

Among  the  important  causes  of  the  decline  of  agriculture  in  this  region  has 
been  the  lack  of  sufficient  capital  to  make  the  necessary  improvements,  to  pur- 
chase needed  equipment,  and  hire  sufficient  and  competent  labor. 

Then  on  page  7  of  this  same  bulletin  is  this  statement: 

Enough  evidence  is  at  hand  to  support  the  belief  that  the  agricultural  condi- 
tions existing  in  southern  New  York  are  not  necessary,  and  that  they  are  the 
results  of  poor  or  indifferent  management.  As  pointed  out  in  Bulletin  60  of 
the  Bureau  of  Soils,  the  problem  of  soil  improvement  is  purely  one  of  a  system 
of  managements. 

On  page  17  of  this  same  bulletin  this  statement  occurs: 

The  opportunity  to  establish  a  practical  and  successful  system  of  manage- 
ment on  lands  which  can  be  purchased  at  remarkably  low  prices  is  great. 
Many  farms  can  be  purchased  for  less  money  than  the  buildings  are  worth. 
A  small  amount  of  capital  will  go  a  long  way.  These  lands  are  not  infertile  and 
respond  quickly  to  good  management. 

Then,  there  is  the  conclusion  that  the  run-down  condition  of  the 
land  in  southern  New  York  is  due  primarily  to  the  misuse  of  the 
soil.  etc.  Do  you  agree  with  that? 

Mr.  TITUS.  'Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Are  you  a  farmer  yourself  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  have  been  a  farmer  for  about  60  years,  and  I  am  a 
farmer  now,  although  my  farm  is  reduced  to  about  1£  acres.  How- 
ever, I  still  raise  a  few  peas  and  vegetables  in  my  garden.  I  have 
done  my  bit,  it  seems  to  me. 


628  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Have  you  been  a  successful  farmer  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Moderately  successful,  or  fairly  so. 

Mr.  MAYS.  You  have  stated  two  or  three  times  that  personally  you 
oppose  this  bill  because  you  fear  competition  from  the  soldiers  in 
agriculture  as  affecting  those  already  in  the  business.  Does  your 
association  take  the  same  position  that  you  do  upon  that  question, 
that  they  fear  competition  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Practically  they  do.  I  might  qualify  that  statement: 
Where  those  soldiers  proved  within  two  or  three  years  to  be  suc- 
cessful farmers  there  would  be  the  danger  of  competition,  but  per- 
sonally I  believe  that  so  many  of  them  will  make  failures  of  it, 
and  will  run  away  from  the  farms  to  go  into  the  cities  among  the 
bright  lights  and  excitement  of  the  cities,  that  it  would  not  be  serious. 
I  believe  that  many  of  them  would  quit  the  farms. 

Mr.  MAYS.  The  farms  would  then  be  available  for  somebody  else. 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir;  so  they  would. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Does  New  York  State  produce  what  it  consumes  in  the 
way  of  food  supplies? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  do  not  think  it  does. 

Mr.  MAYS.  It  imports  the  larger  proportion  of  its  food  supply, 
does  it  not? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  do  not  know  about  the  larger  proportion,  but  it  does 
import  in  great  quantities.  As  a  farmer,  I  would  say  that  I  have 
plowed  and  harrowed  behind  a  team  of  oxen  many  a  day.  We  did  not 
have  recreation  fields  and  community  associations  to  teach  boys  how 
to  play  ball  and  other  games,  but  the  boys  had  to  work  in  those  days, 
and  I  think  they  were  a  blamed  sight  better  off.  I  believe  in  a  certain 
amount  of  recreation,  but  I  believe  that  the  best  men  in  this  country 
started  to  work  when  they  were  boys  about  5  years  of  age. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Do  you  want  your  boy  to  have  as  hard  a  time  as 
you  had  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  No,  sir;  but  I  am  as  well  off,  and,  perhaps,  better  off 
than  some  of  the  present  rising  generation  who  have  been  born  with 
silver  spoons  in  their  mouths  will  be. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Do  you  not  believe  that  it  is  desirable  to  relieve  the 
congestion  in  the  large  cities  as  much  as  possible? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir.  Now,  there  is  one  more  important  point,  if 
you  will  permit  me.  In  1916  there  were  247  farmer  boys,  or  farmers' 
sons,  who  left  the  farms  of  Nassau  County  to  take  up  their  life  work 
along  other  lines. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Did  they  better  their  condition? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Some  of  them  did,  but  I  do  not  know  about  all  of  them. 
Nassau  County  is  probably  the  smallest  county  in  the  State.  We 
have  only  1,037  farms  in  Nassau  County,  but  247 'boys  left  those  farms 
to  go  into  the  cities.  Would  you  not  view  that  situation  with  some 
alarm  ?  I  take  it  that  that  condition  prevails  all  over  the  country  to 
some  extent. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Does  not  that  emphasize  the  necessity  of  taking  some 
action  to  encourage  the  building  up  of  farms  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MAYS.  You  would  not  allow  that  tendency  to  proceed  indefi- 
nitely, would  you  ? 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  62£ 

Mr.  TITTJS.  It  is  alarming.  I  do  not  know  what  the  result  of  ail 
this  will  be,  but  I  view  it  with  considerable  alarm. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Did  your  association  take  into  consideration  that  the 
expenditure  of  the  $500,000,000  proposed  in  this  bill  would  be  ex- 
tended over  a  period  of  several  years,  and  that  it  would  not  be  an 
immediate  draft  to  that  extent  upon  the  Treasury  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Did  not  the  bill  call  for  an  initial  appropriation  of 
$100,000  ? 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  There  are  other  bills. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  The  bill  last  year  provided  for  $100,000,000  and  this 
'bill  provides  for  $500,000.000. 

Mr.  MAYS.  $100,000  was  expended. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  That  was  for  investigations. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  soil  erosion  and  the  overgrowth 
on  these  abandoned  farms  are  every  year  making  the  reclamation  of 
those  farms  more  difficult? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Would  you  think  it  safe  to  let  that  condition  pro- 
ceed indefinitely  ?  Have  you  a  plan  to  suggest  whereby  at  the  time 
you  are  reclaiming  such  lands  you  will  be  relieving  the  congestion 
in  the  cities  and  providing  employment  and  homes  for  returning  sol- 
diers, or  have  you  a  better  plan  to  suggest  than  that  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  have  not. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Titus,  these  gentlemen  who  are  with  you  tell 
me  that  they  have  to  appear  before  another  committee,  and  they 
Avant  to  make  brief  statements  before  they  leave. 

Mi.  PORTER.  We  are  perfectly  Avilling  for  Mr.  Titus  to  remain 
here  until  you  get  through  with  him.  I  think  we  all  indorse  what 
Mr.  Titus  has  been  saying.  We  indorse  the  questions  and  answers, 
or  practically  all  that  have  been  asked  and  answered.  Mr.  Miller,  of 
Susquehnnna,  Pa.,  would  like  to  address  the  committee  for  two  or 
three  minutes. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  JOHN  D.  MILLER,  VICE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE 
DAIRYMEN'S  LEAGUE,  SUSQTTEHANNA,  PA. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Mr.  Chairman.  I  am  the  vice  president  and  am  here 
as  the  representatiA~e  of  the  Dairymen's  League,  an  organization  of 
75,000  dairy  farmers  scattered  throughout  the  States  of  Pennsylvania. 
Xew  Jersey,  Xew  York,  Massachusetts,  and  Connecticut.  I  can  only 
take  about  tAvo  minutes,  but  I  will  be  glad  to  return  later  and  answei 
any  questions.  My  first  thought,  gentlemen,  is  that  this  subject  natu- 
rally divides  itself  into  two  branches,  first,  what  is  best  for  the 
returning  soldier,  to  whom  we  owe  so  much,  and,  second,  what  is  best 
for  the  public  good.  We  are  here  before  you  with  some  knowledge 
of  farm  conditions  and  of  the  result  of  people  going  from  other  voca- 
tions in  the  cities  to  the  farms.  Now,  in  proffering  this  invitation 
to  the  returning  soldiers  to  go  out  upon  the  farms,  you  are  inviting 
them  to  another  siren  country,  and  my  advice  to  them  would  be  to 
purchase  a  considerable  supply  of  wax.  It  is  unworkable 

The  CHAIRMAN  (interposing).  You  would  do  like  Ulysses? 


630  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  MILLER.  Yes,  sir.  Now,  as  to  the  development  and  the  gen- 
eral good  of  all  the  people,  which,  as  I  take  it  from  the  questions 
you  gentlemen  have  asked,  is  an  increase  of  the  food  supply,  I  say 
to  you  that  the  ultimate  working  put  of  this  plan  will  not  result 
in  an  increased  food  supply  for  this  country.  These  questions  can 
not  be  regulated  by  arbitrary  governmental  actions,  but  they  must 
be  regulated  by  the  inexorable  law  of  supply  and  demand.  If  tem- 
porarily the  quantity  of  farm  products  is  increased,  then  the  law 
of  supply  and  demand  will  reduce  the  price  on  those  farm  products. 
That  will  result  in  a  high  cost  of  production  and  in  the  farmers 
going  out  of  business.  If  these  new  farms  constitute  a  part  of  the 
high  cost  of  production,  they  will  cease,  but  if  they  have  a  lesser 
cost  of  production,  it  means 'that  in  other  sections  the  high  cost  of 
production  farms  will  go  out  of  business,  and  so  the  final  result 
of  your  effort  will  be  that  you  will  have  a  shifting  area  of  pro- 
duction. I  think  that  is  all  I  have  to  say,  and  I  thank  you. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  F.  A.  SAULSBURY,  PRESIDENT  OF  ONTARIO 
COUNTY  FARM  BUREAU  ASSOCIATION,  PHELPS,  N.  Y. 

Mr.  SAULSBTJRY.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  question  has  been  brought  up 
here  in  regard  to  food  production.  I  live  up  in  central  New  York, 
where  we  are  growing  quite  a  large  quantity  of  cabbages,  my  county 
being  one  of  the  largest  cabbage-growing  counties  in  New  York. 
We  also  grow  quite  a  large  area  of  potatoes,  together  with  carrots 
and  other  vegetables  to  a  certain  extent.  I  want  to  say  that  last 
year  in  our  section  there  were  hundreds  of  acres  of  cabbages  that 
were  not  harvested  because  of  the  fact  that  the  farirn-r  could  not 
secure  their  value.  They  would  not  pay  the  expense  of  harvesting 
and  marketing  them.  Of  course,  it  was  a  bad  season. 

Mr.  WHITE.  How  many  acres  were  lost? 

Mr.  SAULSBURY.  Several  hundred  acres. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Last  year? 

Mr.  SAULSBURY.  Yes,  sir.  While  we  are  not  a  wheat-growing  sec- 
tion, especially  at  the  present  time,  last  year  the  wheat  crop  did  not 
produce  enough  to  pay  the  expense  of  growing  it.  Of  course,  that 
was  due  to  unfavorable  climatic  conditions  which  we  do  not  always 
have.  We  are  in  a  fairly  good  farming  section,  and  usually  producn 
a  bountiful  wheat  crop.  One  thing  that  I  can  not  quite  get  through 
my  head  is  this :  I  believe  I  am  as  much  in  favor  of  helping  the 
soldier  as  anyone,  and  we  have  a  young  man  who  was  in  the  Army 
on  our  farm  at  the  present  time  getting  his  first  experience  in  prac- 
tical farming,  and  he  will  buy  a  farm  when  he  can.  He  is  trying 
to  do  that.  While  I  am  a  farmer  and  live  on  a  farm,  and  will  have 
to  meet  that  competition  if  this  plan  is  carried  out,  it  seems  to  me 
that  some  of  that  money  ought  to  be  loaned  to  men  to  aid  them  in 
starting  grocery  stores,  wool  factories,  and  other  business.  It  seems 
to  me  that  other  men,  as  well  as  the  farmer,  ought  to  have  to  meet 
this  competition.  Perhaps  I  am  too  practical,  but  that  is  the  way  I 
look  at  it.  I  thank  you. 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  631 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.   CHARLES  D.   PORTER,  PRESIDENT   OF  OR- 
LEANS COUNTY  FARM  BUREAU  ASSOCIATION,  ALBION,  N.  Y. 

Mr.  PORTER.  I  would  like  to  say  a  word  in  regard  to  those  neglected 
fa  I'D  is  in  New  York  State.  Those  farms  are  in  that  condition  at  the 
present  time  for  the  reason  that  there  has  not  been  available  help  to 
work  the  farms  as  they  ought  to  be  worked.  Those  abandoned 
farms,  or  a  lot  of  them,  wrere  owned  by  families,  and  the  families  have 
been  broken  up,  as  the  boys  have  gone  to  the  cities,  leaving  the  old 
people,  and  they  can  not  get  help.  The  result  is  that  the  farms  are 
neglected.  If  a  scheme  could  be  devised  by  which  there  could  be 
some  help  secured  by  sending  soldiers  to  help  on  the  farms  or  if  in 
some  way  there  could  be  some  help  provided,  there  would  not  be  as 
many  neglected  farms  as  there  are  to-day.  The  question  has  been 
asked.  "  What  do  you  suggest?  "  We  all  agree  that  we  want  to  take 
care  of  the  soldiers.  We  want  to  take  care  of  all  the  soldiers,  and 
we  do  not  want  to  pick  out  some  soldiers  whom  we  think  might  farm 
and  put  them  on  farms.  If  they  have  no  experience  or  training  as 
farmers,  it  would  not  be  any  help  to  put  them  on  farms,  but  it  would 
be  like  tying  a  millstone  about  their  necks.  If  we  want  to  help  them, 
why  not  make  an  appropriation  and  have  it  allotted  among  the  States, 
requiring  the  States  to  meet  that  appropriation  with  a  like  appro- 
priation, and  then  have  the  States,  in  conjunction  with  the  Secretary 
of  the  Interior,  perhaps,  work  out  the  problem,  and  not  only  get 
the  men  on  the  farms,  but  give  them  help  in  some  other  businesses 
that  they  might  w^ant  to  carry  on  instead  of  farming?  That  would 
help  all  of  the  soldiers,  and  the  States  would  be  interested  in  financ- 
ing it. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Have  you  any  idea  of  the  value  of  those  abandoned 
lands  h|New  York  State? 

Mr.  PORTER.  The  values  varjr,  and,  of  course,  some  farms  are  worth 
more  than  others,  but  it  has  been  stated  that  most  of  those  farms  can 
probably  be  bought  to-day  for  less  money  than  it  would  take  to  build 
the  buildings  and  fences  that  are  now  on  the  farms. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  would  that  be  per  acre? 

Mr.  PORTER.  That  would  probably  be  about  $50  per  acre. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  not  some  much  cheaper  than  that? 

Mr.  PORTER.  Yes,  sir ;  there  are  some  cheaper  than  that. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  How  large  would  those  tracts  be? 

Mr.  PORTER.  Anywhere  from  50  acres  up. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  How  far  up  ? 

Mr.  PORTER.  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  About  how  would  they  run? 

Mr.  PORTER.  From  100  acres  to  150  acres,  and  there  are  some  farms 
of  200  acres  or  more. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  think  it  would  be  possible  in  the  State  of 
New  York  to  get  a  tract  of  10,000  acres  altogether? 

Mr.  PORTER.  Yes.  sir ;  I  would  not  be  surprised. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  Bulletin  No.  60  of  the  United  States  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture  I  find  this  statement  on  page  11 : 

The  first  of  these  farms  sold  in  1883  for  $37.50  an  acre,  while  in  1909  the 
second  farm,  which  is  neither  better  nor  worse,  was  sold  for  about  $5  per  acre. 
A  number  of  farms  have  recently  been  sold  in  this  same  region  for  taxes,  and 
brought  only  a  few  dollars  per  acre. 


632  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  PORTER.  I  know  of  some  farms  that  were  bought  in  Oswego 
County,  adjoining  Lake  Ontario,  some  years  ago.  One  of  my  neigh- 
bors bought  one  of  those  farms  for  $7.50  per  acre.  It  had  quit  a 
large  orchard  on  it,  but  it  was  a  neglected  farm  and  was  bought,  as  I 
say,  for  about  $7.50  per  acre.  Within  a  few  years,  he  was  raising 
$5-a-barrel  apples  on  that  farm,  and  lots  of  them. 

Mr.  MAYS.  You  stated  that  you  were  in  favor  of  having  some  plan 
for  aiding  the  soldiers  by  which  they  would  be  sent  out  to  the  farms 
to  work. 

Mr.  PORTER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Would  you  regard  that  as  pretty  substantial  assistance  ? 

Mr.  PORTER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Do  you  know  to-day  what  the  farmers  in  New  York 
are  paying  for  help? 

Mr.  PORTER.  I  know  what  they  are  paying  in  some  parts.  I  know 
that  they  are  paying  what  amounts  to  $100  per  month  and  more. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Would  you  have  the  Government  to  pay  a  portion  of 
those  wages? 

Mr.  PORTER.  The  farmer  would. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Would  you  have  the  Government  to  act  as  an  agency 
to  secure  help  for  the  farmers? 

Mr.  PORTER.  Yes,  sir.  These  farms  are  equipped  with  tenant 
houses,  and  the  workers  would  have  good  homes,  good  gardens,  and 
all  that  sort  of  thing,  in  addition  to  the  wage,  which  would  run  any- 
where from  $900  to  $1,000  a  year. 

Mr.  MAYS.  The  gentleman  who  preceded  you  thought  that  this 
would  impose  unfair  competition  upon  the  farmers  in  their  business. 

Mr.  PORTER.  In  regard  to  competition,  of  course  I  would  not  fear 
competition  from  farms  that  might  be  taken  up  in  certain  locations, 
because  the  men  who  would  be  located  on  those  farms  would  cave  up 
before  they  could  produce  very  much  as  compared  with  th™  farms 
already  organized.  I  believe  that  if  they  took  up  these  abandoned 
farms — and  of  course  wre  do  not  figure  that  all  of  them  will  be  taken 
up — but  if  some  of  them  are  taken  up,  there  will  be  some  farmers 
who  will  be  industrious  and  successful,  but  I  do  not  believe  that  that 
competition  would  be  unfair. 

Mr.  MAYS.  If  there  were  opportunities  to  secure  tracts  such  as  you 
suggested  awhile  ago  of  10,000  acres  or  more,  or  tracts  large  enough 
to  place  a  project  upon,  would  you  object  to  that  sort  of  project  in 
your  State? 

Mr.  PORTER.  If  it  was  carried  on  in  the  right  form  I  would  not, 
but  I  would  object  serious!}"  to  have  it  taken  out  of  the  hands  of  the 
State  government,  I  think  the  State  government  should  handle  this 
proposition  and  should  help  select  the  farms  and  the  men. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Do  you  understand  the  provisions  of  this  Mondell 
Bill? 

Mr.  PORTER.  I  have  not  read  that  bill. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Then,  you  are  not  sure  that  you  would  oppose  that  bill 
after  you  had  read  it? 

Mr.  PORTER.  I  would  oppose  the  bill  that  I  did  read. 

Mr.  MAYS.  But  you  did  not  read  the  Mondell  bill  ? 

Mr.  PORTER.  No,  sir.  Furthermore,  I  did  not  come  here  for  the 
purpose  of  appearing  before  this  committee,  and  I  was  unprepared 
along  those  lines. 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  633 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Would  you  force  those  boys  to  go  out  on  the  farms  and 
work,  or  those  that  the  gentleman  who  preceded  you  said  were 
walking  around  the  streets  wearing  the  uniform? 

Mr.  PORTER.  That  is  true  in  New  York. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  How  would  you  put  them  out  on  the  farms? 

Mr.  PORTER.  I  do  not  know  how  you  would  put  them  out  there. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  are  in  favor  of  doing  something  for  the  soldiers? 

Mr.  PORTER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  All  of  these  people  seem  to.  be  in  favor  of  that.  If 
that  is  true,  why  do  you  not  come  here  with  some  constructive  sug- 
gestions to  help  us  meet  that  problem,  rather  than  coming  here 
with  a  series  of  knocks  ?  Anybody  can  knock,  but  what  we  are  look- 
ing for  is  something  that  is  feasible  to  do  for  the  soldiers.  We  would 
like  to  hear  some  constructive  suggestions  with  that  end  in  view. 

Mr.  PORTER.  In  reply  to  that  question,  I  would  suggest  that  per- 
sonally I  have  not  had  time  to  look  up  this  bill.  I  did  not  know  that 
there  was  such  a  bill  pending. 

Mr.  TITTJS.  May  I  be  permitted  to  ask  Mr.  Porter  a  question? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Certainly. 

Mr.  TITUS.  This  is  in  line  with  a  remark  that  was  brought. out. 
Mr.  Porter  states  that  the  soldiers  should  be  working  on  the  farms. 
I  do  not  know  what  the  situation  is  in  the  Western  States,  but  I  live 
within  6  or  7  miles  of  Camp  Mills  and  within  30  or  40  miles  of  Camp 
Upton.  Camp  Mills  is  in  the  center  of  the  truck  region  of  Nassau 
County,  and  they  are  offering  men  sixty  and  seventy  dollars  per 
month,  but  I  do  not  believe  that  more  than  10  soldiers  have  gone  to 
work  on  farms,  and  those  that  did  go  did  not  stay  24  hours. 

Mr.  PORTER.  Our  farmers  are  offering  $3  per  day  and  board  to  sol- 
diers or  anybody  else  they  can  get  to  do  their  work,  but  they  can  not 
get  the  help. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Take  such  a  tract  of  land  as  you  have  described  to 
be  bought  at  a  very  reasonable  price,  or  was  bought,  in  fact,  at  a 
reasonable  price  within  three  years 

Mr.  PORTER  (interposing).  I  think  that  was  within  five  years. 
Time  goes  fast. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Well,  five  years.  You  say  it  was  a.  very  productive 
and  very  profitable  farm.  Now,  would  it  be  any  mistake  to  put  sol- 
diers on  such  farms  as  that,  or  help  soldiers  to  procure  homes  like  that 
in  New  York? 

Mr.  PORTER.  If  the  soldier  was  made  of  the  proper  material,  it 
would  not  be. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  If  it  would  not  be  in  New  York,  it  ought  not  to  be  in 
any  other  State,  ought  it  ? 

Mr.  PORTER.  Not  if  the  conditions  were  the  same. 

Mr.  MAYS.  New  York  soldiers  are  generally  made  of  the  proper 
material,  are  they  not? 

Mr.  PORTER.  Most  of  them  are. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  want  to  say,  further,  that  in  considering  a  proposi- 
tion of  this  kind,  you  should  bear  in  mind  that  the  State  government 
coperates  and  that  a  representatives  of  the  governor's  chair  helps  in 
the  selection  of  the  projects,  so  that  there  is  cooperation,  as  you  will 
find  when  }7ou  read  the  Mondell  bill,  between  the  State  and  the  De- 
partment of  the  Interior  in  locating  and  carrying  out  these  projects. 


634  HOMES  FOE   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  PORTER.  Does  this  bill  call  for  a  like  amount  or  any  amount  of 
funds  to  come  from  the  States  ? 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  No ;  it  does  not,  but  it  provides  that  if  the  State  co- 
operates to  the  extent  of  25  per  cent,  they  then  have  greater  rights  in 
the  proposition. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  They  will  not  select  anything  except  it  is  approved 
and  advocated  by  the  Government. 

Mr.  PORTER.  My  experience  has  been  that  where  there  is  money  in- 
vested in  a  proposition,  whatever  it  may  be,  and  the  people  who  are 
interested  have  money  in  the  proposition,  it  is  more  likely  to  be  a  suc- 
cess than  where  they  do  not  have  money  invested ;  therefore  I  believe 
it  is  highly  important  that  this  bill  provide  that  the  States  should 
match  any  amount  of  money  that  it  is  decided  shall  be  allotted  to  the 
States.  For  instance,  if  $100,000  was  allotted  to  New  York  State, 
New  York  State  should  match  that  $100,000. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Do  you  believe  New  York  State  would  do  that  ? 

Mr.  PORTER.  We  are  doing  it  on  extension  work  right  straight  along. 
We  are  matching  to-day  in  New  York  State  all  the  funds  that  come 
from  the  Lever  bill  and  the  special  funds  that  are  provided  for  exten- 
sion farm  work.  We  are  matching  that  and  going  nearly  $100,000 
better  than  the  Federal  Government  is  putting  into  our  State,  besides 
what  we  are  getting  for  our  county  supervisors. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  My  State  of  Washington  has  appropriated  $500,000 
per  annum  for  10  years  for  just  this  sort  of  work,  and  I  should  think 
the  great  State  of  New  York  could  afford  to  do  as  well. 

Mr.  PORTER.  Well,  I  think  the  State  of  New  York  would  come  for- 
ward on  a  proposition  of  this  kind  if  it  is  properly  done. 

Now,  I  am  sorry  I  have  got  to  go  at  this  time,  but  I  am  due  over  at 
the  Senate  committee  at  10  o'clock. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  Mr.  Porter,  I  hope  you  will  banish  from  your 
mind  the  bogie  man  that  this  is  solely  a  scheme  to  drain  the  swamp 
lands  of  the  South  and  irrigate  the  arid  lands  of  the  West. 

Mr.  PORTER.  I  am  glad  that  this  bill  does  not  contemplate  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  riot  solely  intended  nor  solely  permitted. 

Mr.  TITUS.  We  have  another  hearing  this  morning  before  the  Sen- 
ate committee  on  the  reduction  of  the  appropriation  which  would 
curtail  the  work  of  the  counties  all  through  the  country.  I  was  down 
here  last  week  on  this  matter  and  I  tried  to  see  your  worthy  chair- 
man at  that  time,  but  failed  to  do  so,  and  so  immediately  on  my  return 
home  I  wrote  a  letter 

Mr.  MAYS  (interposing).  What  did  you  say  it  would  curtail? 

Mr.  TITUS.  The  work  of  the  county  "agents  in  the  various  counties. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Are  these  county  agents  that  spoke  here  this  morning  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  No,  sir ;  not  one  of  them  is.  Mr.  Saulsbury  is  president 
of  the  Ontario  County  Farm  Bureau;  Mr.  Porter  is  from  Orleans, 
and  Mr. -Miller  represents — he  is  vice  president  or  secretary  of  the 
Dairymen's  League. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Mr.  Titus,  I  would  like  to  ask  you  a  question — first, 
pursuing  the  thought  just  a  little  farther — a  qestion  was  asked  by  the 
gentleman  at  your  right,  Mr.  White,  and  you  stated  that  not  all  of  the 
farmer  boys  would  succeed  on  a  farm  in  their  own  community.  How 
would  that  percentage  of  successes  or  failures,  in  your  judgment,  of 
the  farm  boys  of  your  community,  compare — located  on  a  farm  in 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  635 

their  own  community — with  the  project  system  which  would  locate 
them  in  about  99  per  cent  of  the  cases  away  from  home?  That  is,  in 
which  case  would  the  percentage  of  successes,  in  your  judgment,  be 
greater?  This  bill  proposes  to  take  the  boy  away  from  his  home. 

Mi-.  Tin  s.  Well,  it  would  be  greater  where  they  would  be  allowed 
to  remain  on  the  farm  at  home. 

Mr.  YAILE.  What  would  be  greater? 

Mr.  TITUS.  The  percentage  of  successes. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  In  his  local  community  or  away  from  home? 

Mr.  TITUS.  In  his  local  community.  Of  course,  there  would  be 
isolated  cases — exceptions. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  One  other  question,  Mr.  Titus.  It  is  a  sort  of  a 
harmless  joke  of  some  of  the  members  of  this  committee  to  make  it 
appear  to  the  witness  from  any  State  that  this  project  will,  of  course, 
furnish  numerous  projects  in  his  home  State.  His  home  State  is 
always  a  favored  State.  Now,  as  an  actual  fact,  judging  by  the  years 
that  have  gone,  taking  into  account  also  the  fact  that  the  head  of  the 
Interior  Department  is  from  the  extreme  West ;  that  the  director  gen- 
eral is  also  from  the  extreme  West 

Mr.  SUMMERS  (interposing).  Pardon  me,  Mr.  Benham,  to  whom  do 
you  refer? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Director  Davis  is  from  Illinois. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Was  from  Illinois;  is  from  farther  West. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  From  where? 

Mr.  BENHAM. _Well,  that  is  a  question  that  we  can  take  up  later. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  He  has  been  in  this  service  for  37  years. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  He  testified  before  this  committee  that  his  interests 
are  largely  in  California  and  have  been  for  the  last  several  years. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Would  be  lodged  there ;  that  is  what  he  testified. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Well,  I  have  the  floor,  I  believe — also  that  the 
gentleman,  the  chief  engineer  of  the  Reclamation  Service,  who  has 
appeared  before  this  committee,  Mr.  Corey,  is  from  California. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Indiana  is  his  State. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  understand.  Now  I  can  go  into  that  just  as  much 
as  you  want  to,  Mr.  Chairman.  Thirty-seven  years  ago  he  was  from 
Indiana,  and  I  may  say  for  the  benefit  of  the  chairman  and  others 
that  since  it  is  a  joke  on  Indiana,  70  Members  of  the  present  Con- 
gress are  in  the  same  sense  from  Indiana  that  Mr.  Corey  is  from 
Indiana,  and  hence,  pursuing  the  thought  a  little  further,  the  mem- 
bership of  this  committee,  four  of  them,  as  you  will  observe,  are 
from  California,  and  in  fact  we  people  from  the  Middle  West  are 
put  in  only  as  a  sort  of  ballast. 

Taking  into  account  the  experience  of  the  past  and  the  fact  that 
the  Interior  Department  will  have  the  last  word  as  to  where  these 
projects  are  to  be  located,  what  will  be  the  effect — that  is,  where 
will  these  projects  probably  be  located? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  Mr.  Benham,  your  premises  are  not  correct, 
in  that  the  Interior  Department  is  going  to  have  the  last  say  on  the 
location  of  these  projects. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  In  what  respect  am  I  misrepresenting  the  truth,  Mr. 
Chairman  ? 

The  Chairman.  Why,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  has  the 
last  say. 


636  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Of  which  you  are  a  distinguished  Member. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  The  bill  doesn't  say  so. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  I  assume  that  the  Appropriations  Com- 
mittee will  consider  the  appropriation  for  each  project. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Well,  I  have  asked  a  question  of  Mr.  Titus,  and  I 
am  stating  the  facts  that  the  bill  justifies  and  that  the  author  of  the 
bill  expounded  and  that  the  chairman  of  the  committee  and  the 
gentleman  on  his  right  in  their  remarks  have  justified. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  I  don't  think  you  have,  Mr.  Benham,  be- 
cause projects  are  selected,  and  they  are  subject  to  the  approval  or 
disapproval  of  Congress. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  As  an  actual  fact,  how  much  will  Congress  know 
about  an  individual  project?  Are  we  expected  to  go  out  to  each 
individual  project  and  investigate  it? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  feel  that  you  will  know  nothing  about  it 
when  the  matter  is  presented  to  Congress  and  full  hearing  are  had 
on  each  project  and  on  each  proposed  expenditure  of  money  ?  There 
will  be  full  hearings  on  each  individual  project. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  On  each  individual  project  you  understand  Con- 
gress will  have  a  full  hearing  on  each  individual  project? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  on  each  individual  project. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  How  much  more  will  Congress  be  able  to  do  than 
to  attend  these  hearings  on  these  individual  projects? 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Those  hearings  would  probably  come  before  the 
Appropriations  Committee,  would  they  not? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  would  come  in  the  Appropriations  Com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  The  Appropriations  Committee  will  go  into  every 
one  of  them  before  they  appropriate  a  dollar. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  They  will  have  an  immense  job  on  their  hands; 
that  is  all  I  have  got  to  say,  if  this  thing  amounts  to  anything.  It 
must,  after  all,  be  left  to  the  testimony  of  a  representative  of  the 
Interior  Department.  We  have  the  testimony  only  of  gentlemen 
representing  the  Interior  Department. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  are  doing  that  to-day  on  the  reclamation 
projects.  The  hearings  are  very  voluminous. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  It  is  not  possible  for  this  Congress  to  go  out  and 
inspect — it  is  not  supposed  that  the  members  of  Congress  will  go 
out  and  visit  these  projects  and  pass  judgment  on  them. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  have  done  that, 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  The  Appropriations  Committee  goes  out  and  goes 
over  every  one  of  them.  I  have  been  over  both  of  them  in  my  State 
with  the  committee. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  think  that  is  another  of  your  harmless  jokes. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  No;  I  have  gone  right  with  them.  The  Appropria- 
tions Committee  goes  and  looks  at  them  and  goes  all  over  them.  I 
rode  from  one  end  to  the  other  of  those  projects  in  Colorado  with 
the  committee,  myself. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  It  is  absolutely  and  entirely  impossible  and  ridicu- 
lous to  advance  that  theory  about  all  these  projects. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  we  ought  to  hear  this  gen- 
tleman. Let  him  say  anything  he  wants  to,  and  then  interrogate 
him  after  he  gets  through. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  637 

Mr.  TITUS.  Gentlemen,  I  havivt  anything  further  to  sav,  only 
this— 

The  CHAIRMAN  (interprosing).  Mr.  Benham  asked  a  question. 

Mr.  TITUS.  Excuse  me:  what  was  it? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  don't  seem  seem  to  get  anywhere  with  my  ques- 
tions, Mr.  Chairman,  without,  not  a  discussion  with  the  witness,  but 
a  discussion  with  the  members  of  this  committee,  so  I  guess  it  is  not 
necessary.  I  will  have  my  say  a  little  later. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Idaho.  Well,  I  think  you  should  state  your  ques- 
tion, Mr.  Benham,  distinctly,  so  that  the  witness  can  understand  it. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Mr.  Smith.  I  think  the  witness  understands  it,  but  I 
don't  think  you  understand  it. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Let  us  all  keep  silent  now  while  he  states  the  question. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  be  in  order.  Mr.  Titus,  you 
are  at  the  disposal  of  Mr.  Benham.  Mr.  Benham,  you  may  proceed. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Well,  Mr.  Chairman,  will  the  members  of  the  com- 
mittee allow  this  talk  to  proceed  between  the  witness  and  myself?  If 
I  don't  have  the  floor  I  don't  care  to  attempt  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  you  don't  wish  to  be  interrupted  you  may  pro- 
ceed. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  don't  want  more  than  six  members  of  the  com- 
mittee to  jump  in  at  once  and  try  to  interfere. 

You  are  fairly  well  acquainted  with  the  reclamation  projects  of 
the  Interior  and  other  departments  of  the  Government  for  the  past 
several  years,  as  to  where  they  are  located? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Tolerably  so ;  yes,  sir.  I  have  traveled  a  few  times — 
three  times — across  the  continent. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  And  you  are  entirely  familiar  with  the  many  recla- 
mation projects  in  the  various  States,  are  you? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  And  in  New  York  and  in  the  East  and  Middle  West 
there  are  many,  don't  you  think,  reclamation  projects  that  the  Gov- 
ernment is  carrying  on  successfully? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Well,  it  is  a  fact  that  the  gentlemen,  according  to 
this  bill,  who  will  have  the  last  word,  are  members  of  the  Interior 
Department.  Now,  judging  by  the  experience  of  the  past,  where  the 
projects  have  been  located  and  the  personnel  and  the  location  of  the 
gentlemen  who  will  have  the  last  word  on  their  location,  do  you 
assume  that  that  will  have  a  tendency  to  take  the  farm  labor  away 
from  the  State  of  New  York  or  bring  it  back  to  the  State  of  New 
York — that  is,  the  reclamation  projects,  the  soldier-helping  projects, 
so  called? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  am  fearful  that  it  would  draw  some  of  it  away.  Now, 
that  particular  point,  as  I  say,  I  had  given  thought  to.  It  seems 
to  me,  gentlemen,  that  this  is  a  most  serious  question,  and  I  know  that 
this  committee  are  doing  their  very  level  best  to  act  in  the  proper  line 
toward  the  returning  soldier.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  thought  of  the 
thinking  men  of  this  country  should  be  concentrated  in  some  way— 
those  men  of  experience  in  farming  matters — on  this  one  subject,  that 
the  best  results  may  be  obtained. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Are  you  through,  Mr.  Benham? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  suppose  so. 


638  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Well,  I  want  you  to  be  through.  I  don't  want  to 
interrupt  anybody. 

You  spoke  awhile  ago  of  the  competition  with  the  farmer  and  farm 
labor  being  interfered  with;  that  the  soldier  in  your  section  would 
not  work  on  the  farm.  Don't  you  think  that  that  labor  could  be 
supplied  by  inducing  the  southern  negroes  to  go  up  there  and  take 
their  places? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Thirty  years  ago  we  had  nothing  but  southern  Negro 
labor  in  our  locality ;  to-day  there  are  very  few  of  them,  and  isn't  it 
a  fact  that  the  Middle  West,  Kansas,  Arkansas,  and  Oklahoma,  has 
been  depending  very  largely  upon  the  Negro  laborer  of  Georgia,  Ala- 
bama, and  Mississippi,  and  they  have  gone  out  there  at  the  instance 
of  some  of  these  intelligence  bureaus  on  the  promise  of  immense 
wages  and  nothing  to  do,  and  have  remained  there  a  year  or  two,  and 
have  then  returned  to  their  native  heath  ?  Isn't  that  fact,  gentlemen  ? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I  really  don't  know. 

Mr.  TITUS.  Now,  we  have  tried  that  in  our  locality,  and  I  will  tell 
you  there  are  very  few  southern  Negro  laborers  working  on  Long 
Island  to-day.  I  do  know  of  a  few  instances.  They  work  there  until 
snow  begins  to  fly,  along  early  in  December,  and  then  you  see  them 
shoot  off  down  South,  and  when  the  sun  begins  to  shine  on  both  sides 
of  the  fence,  they  come  back  again. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Well,  wouldn't  you  be  in  favor  of  inducing  them  to 
come  back? 

Mr.  TITUS.  If  possible,  I  certainly  should,  but  you  know  it  is  like 
pulling  teeth  to  get  a  Negro  away  from  the  South.  I  have  been  all 
through  the  South,  and  I  was  wonderfully  impressed,  and  it  made  a 
deep  and  sad  impression  upon  me,  the  condition  of  the  southern  Negro 
as  to  illiteracy,  immorality,  and  everything  else  in  those  Southern 
States. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Mr.  Titus,  in  answer  to  a  leading  question  by 
Mr.  Benham,  you  expressed  some  apprehension  that  the  farm  labor- 
ers— that  is,  the  hired  man  on  the  farm — in  New  York  and  other 
Eastern  States  might  be  attracted  to  these  new  opportunities  which 
would  be  afforded  by  opening  up  these  new  projects. 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Are  you  opposed  to  giving  the  returning  sol- 
dier who  is  a  farm  laborer,  a  hired  man  on  the  farm,  an  opportunity 
to  get  a  home,  to  own  a  farm  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  am  not  opposed  to  it. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Does  not  this  afford  an  opportunity  for  him 
to  do  it  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  But  I  don't  know  that  I  make  my  thoughts  and  my  posi- 
tion clear  to  you,  gentlemen.  I  favor  this  Government  doing  every- 
thing possible  to  aid  these  returning  soldiers  in  one  way  or  another. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Will  not  this  plan  do  it  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  But  this  plan — I  don't  think  the  Government  is  war- 
ranted in  spending  so  much  money  on  a  plan  of  reclamation,  the  re- 
sult of  which  would  be  so  problematical.  Understand  me,  I  favor 
helping  these  soldiers. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  You  admit  that  you  can  not  help  them  in 
your  own  locality  to  get  back  to  the  farm;  now,  we  are  proposing 
something  that  will  afford  them  an  opportunity.  If  you  are  in  favor 


HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS.  639 

of  helping  them  get  back  into  agricultural  pursuits,  why  not  support 
this  bill? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Because  I  believe,  in  a  general  way,  that  there  is  suffi- 
cient untilled  land  in  this  country  to  supply  the  needs. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  What  is  your  solution,  Mr.  Titus,  of  the 
problem  of  the  high  cost  of  living,  which  is  so  seriously  affecting 
every  wage  earner  in  the  country?  What  is  your  solution  of  that 
problem  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  It  is  a  pretty  knotty  question. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  I  know,  but  it  is  a  question  that  confronts 
this  committee  and  Congress. 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  am  well  aware  of  that. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  We  are  hoping  that  this  legislation  would 
tend  to  solve  that  problem  by  encouraging  agricultural  development. 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  am  afraid  that  no  relief  will  come  from  this  legis- 
lation. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Titus  two  questions. 

There  has  been  some  reference  made  to  the  great  danger  of  taking 
a  young  man  away  from  his  home  and  putting  him  down  on  another 
farm  somewhere  else.  Isn't  it  a  fact  that  the  farmers  west  of  the 
Mississippi  are  as  prosperous  as  any  farmers  in  the  United  States? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Isn't  it  a  fact  that  75  per  cent  of  those  farmers 
are  men  who  did  that  very  thing,  left  their  native  State  and  went 
to  a  new  country  and  developed  a  farm  and  are  still  living  during 
the  first  generation  after  they  moved  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  A  large  number  of  them  did,  but  hardly  the  per- 
centage you  state. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  What  percentage  would  you  say? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Twenty-five  per  cent. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Twenty-five  per  cent  of  them  that  went  from  States 
east  of  the  Mississippi  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Where  did  the  others  come  from? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Well,  they  came  from  some  place. 

Mr.  TITUS.  They  came  from  some  place ;  yes. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  And  they  went  on  to  soil  with  which  they  were  not 
familiar. 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  And  if  they  did  that,  with  some  encouragement  and 
some  help  on  the  part  of  the  Government,  why  should  we  believe  that 
our  returned  soldiers  can  not  do  the  same  and  establish  prosperous 
homes  for  themselves? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Well,  human  nature,  to  my  mind,  has  changed  some- 
what since  the  pioneers  went  west  of  the  Mississippi.  Those  men 
would  endure  hardships  and  did  endure  hardships  which  the  young 
men  of  this  generation  will  balk  at.  Isn't  that  right,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, to  a  large  extent  ? 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  In  that  connection  I  would  like  to  take  that  into 
consideration.  The  Government  is  in  this  bill  proposing  to  make  it 
possible  for  them  to  establish  homes  without  having  undergone  as 
many  hardships  as  these  pioneers  that  you  speak  of  have  undergone. 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes ;  that  is  my  understanding. 

133319—19 41 


640  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  And  that  is  exactly  what  it  proposes,  and  the 
greatest  thing,  in  my  mind,  that  it  does  propose. 

Mr.  TITUS.  It  might  be  sufficient  inducement  to  a  great  many. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Titus  one  more  question. 

Mr.  Titus,  have  you  observed  that  as  a  result  of  the  returning 
soldiers  there  is  any  oversupply  of  labor  in  your  State,  either  in 
town  or  out? 

Mr.  TITUS.  An  oversupply  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  Of  labor ;  yes. 

Mr.  TITUS.  No,  sir;  there  is  an  undersupply — a  great  shortage  of 
labor. 

Mr.  WHITE.  You  honestly  believe  there  is  an  undersupply  of  labor 
in  the  State  of  New  York  at  this  time? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  do.    What  do  the  statistics  show  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Here  is  a  clipping  from  yesterday's  Washington 
Star,  June  19,  1919: 

LABOR      SURPLUS      IN      UNITED      STATES      SHOWS      MAKKKI)      INCREASE JUMPS      FROM 

227,777    FOR    WEEK    ENDED    JUNE    7    TO    241,040    FOR    THE    SAME    PERIOD    TO    14TH 
INSTANT. 

The  labor  surplus  in  the  United  States  jumped  from  227,777  for  the  week 
ending  June  7  to  241,046  for  the  week  ending  June  14,  according  to  the  latest 
report  of  the  United  States  Employment  Service  issued  today. 

Reports  were  received  from  100  cities.  Of  these  48  report  the  surplus,  while 
19  cities  report  a  shortage  of  labor  amounting  to  12,765,  which  compares  with 
a  shortage  last  week  of  9,618  reported  by  15  cities.  This  week  33  cities  report 
an  equality  compared  with  12  cities  last  week  and  48  the  week  before. 

Of  the  38  States  reporting,  21  show  a  surplus  of  labor,  9  an  equality,  and  10 
report  the  above  shortage.  New  York  again  reports  a  surplus  of  100,000. 

Mr.  TITUS.  May  I  say  that  I  misinterpreted  the  gentleman's  ques- 
tion. That  applies  to  all  lines  of  industry,  that  statement. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  thought  that  this  gentleman  here  (Mr.  White)  re- 
ferred to  the  farm  labor. 

Mr.  WHITE.  No ;  I  meant  general  conditions,  as  far  as  you  were  able 
to  speak,  in  the  State. 

Mr.  TITUS.  Well,  I  was  not  cognizant  of  the  situation  in  general. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Well,  there  is  a  million  more  soldiers  to  be  returned  yet, 
or  nearly  that,  to  civil  life,  isn't  there  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes ;  a  whole  lot  more. 

Mr.  MAYS.  That  will  tend  to  add  to  the  surplus  of  labor? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes ;  it  will. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Let  me  ask  you  two  or  three  questions,  Mr.  Titus. 

You  are  in  favor  of  the  basic  proposition  of  doing  something  for 
the  soldier? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  am. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  And  all  these  organizations  associated  with  you  in 
this  protest  are  in  favor  of  doing  something,  aren't  they  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Practically  all  of  them ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  The  whole  American  people  are  in  favor  of  doing 
something  for  the  soldier? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  think  so. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  And  they  are  looking  to  Congress  to  do  something, 
aren't  they? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  641 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Now?  two-thirds  of  them  are  already  discharged. 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  We  have  been  fiddling  along  about  this  thing  for 
months  and  months;  people  are  getting  impatient;  soldiers  are  get- 
ting impatient;  they  feel  that  if  we  are  ever  going  to  do  anything 
we  ought  to  do  something.  Now,  as  a  thoughtful  man,  as  you  are, 
why  haven't  you  been  thinking  about  the  lines  of  construction  instead 
of  along  the  lines  of  destruction?  And  why  don't  you  come  here 
before  this  committee  with  some  concrete  proposition  to  help  the 
returning  soldiers  and  help  this  committee  in  doing  what  the  Ameri- 
can people  want  us  to  do  and  what  we  are  trying  to  do  here,  and  give 
us  some  suggestions  worthy  of  our  consideration — you  and  all  these 
organizations  that  have  come  before  the  committee? 

Mr.  TITUS.  That  is  a  very  petinent  question  to  ask,  I  admit. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  "Well,  will  you  answer  it? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  confess  I  can't  answer  it  at  this  time,  but  I  will  tell 
you  what  I  will  do,  if  it  is  the  desire  of  this  committee  I  will  com- 
municate with  this  committee  in  the  very  near  future  about  that. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Now,  let  me  suggest  this  Mondell  bill  is  no  new  thing; 
it  has  been  worked  out  for  months  and  months  and  months ;  we  don't 
propose  that  it  is  to  be  a  panacea  for  everything  under  the  sun,  or 
bring  about  the  millennium,  but  every  nation  in  the  world  is  trying 
to  do  something  for  the  soldiers:  all  the  English-speaking  people  are 
doing  something  right  along  this  particular  line,  and  they  are  doing 
ten  times  more  than  this.  Now,  why  shouldn't  we  adopt  this  measure, 
even  if  there  are  some  other  measures  that  ought  also  to  be  adopted  by 
other  committees  in  the  way  of  loaning  money  or  advancing  money  or 
something  of  that  kind?  Why  shouldn't  we  do  something  of  this 
kind  and  bring  in  this  unused'  and  abandoned  land  throughout  the 
United  States,  and  tend  at  least  to  check  the  movement  of  everybody, 
all  the  young  people,  toward  the  city  ?  Don't  you  think  we  ought  to 
stop  that? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Certainly  that  is  my  desire. 

.  Mr.  TAYLOR.  And  if  there  is  any  movement  that  tends — that  even 
tends — toward  checking  the  avalanche  of  people  from  the  farms  to  the 
cities,  and  these  boys  that  have  come  back,  who  have  been  on  the  farms 
and  don't  want  to  go  out  on  them — if  we  can  in  some  way  counteract 
that,  isn't  that  a  beneficial  public  service,  and  can't  we  afford  to  spend 
some  money  even  upon  that  proposition  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes;  I  favor  the  expenditure  of  some  money. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Then  why  don't  you  come  in  and  help  us  work  this 
out? 

Mr.  TTTUS.  Well,  I  will  submit  something  to  you.  I  will  get  a  few 
of  my  Nassau  County  friends  together — and  we  have  some  big  men 
there — and  submit  something  to  you. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  How  long  are  you  going  to  wait? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Within  a  few  days. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  As  a  matter  of~fact,  why  didn't  you  bring  this  along 
with  you? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Well,  I  have  been  here  in  Washington—I  was  here  twice 
last  week  on  this  appropriation  bill,  and  I  tell  you  while  I  haven't  any 
business  at  all,  I  am  the  busiest  man  in  the  world,  I  guess. 


642  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Titus,  just  one  question.  I  notice  your  asso- 
ciation, the  Nassau  County  Farm  Bureau  Association,  you  are  coop- 
erators  with  the  New  York  State  Department  of  Agriculture? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  in  this  bulletin  I  have  referred  to,  No.  78 
of  the  department  of  agriculture  of  the  State  of  New  York,  is  this 
statement,  on  page  429 : 

The  State  needs  more  and  better  farmers,  and  it  is  that  class  that  this  de- 
partment particularly  appeals  to  and  to  which  the  State  will  give  a  warm  wel- 
come. The  Census  figures  show  that  only  375,000  people  are  actively  engaged 
in  agriculture  in  this  State.  There  is  ample  room  for  more  than  double  that 
number. 

You  agree  \vith  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  should  say  that  that  was  practically  correct. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  more  questions,  gentlemen? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  would  like  to  ask  one  question. 

You  heard  the  reference  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Colorado,  Mr. 
Taylor,  to  the  desire  of  all  the  people  to  help  and  aid  the  soldiers? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  And  you  heard  also  the  reference  to  the  impatience 
of  the  soldiers  themselves? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  And  that  some  sort  of  measure  should  be  enacted 
in  their  aid? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Yes,  air. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  believe  that  all  the  soldiers,  or  the  great 
majority  of  the  soldiers,  are  impatient  that  a  small  percentage  of  the 
soldiers  shall  be  aided  to  go  on  the  farm  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  In  my  locality  a  very  small  proportion  of  the  soldiers 
are  in  favor  of  it.  They  are  contented  to  loaf,  and  I  will  venture  to 
say  that  that  is  the  condition  that  prevails  in  many  other  localities. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Well,  this  bill  from  the  standpoint  of  reclaiming 
lands  may  be  all  right;  I  think  it  is;  but  do  you  believe  that  Con- 
gress should  enact  legislation  that  would  take  care  of  a  reasonable 
percentage  of  all  the  soldiers  ? 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  am  inclined  to  think  so. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Do  you  not  think,  Mr.  Titus,  that  95  per 
cent,  or  at  least  90  per  cent,  of  the  returning  soldiers  have  their  own 
business  arrangements  and  occupation  to  which  they  will  turn,  and 
that  they  will  not  need  any  particular  encouragement  from  the  Gov- 
ernment? This  legislation  is  framed  to  take  care  of  the  others  who 
may  want  to  go  into  agricultural  pursuits  and  have  no  means  to  enter 
that  occupation. 

Mr.  TITUS.  I  would  naturally  think  that  would  be  the  case,  but 
from  information  I  have  received  in  different  ways  through  the  press 
I  am  led  to  believe  that  a  very  small  percentage"  of  them  wish  to  go 
back  to  the  occupations  that  they  left  to  go  into  the  service. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Well,  in  all  probability  most  of  them  have 
their  plans  arranged  to  go  into  other  activities  that  are  probably 
more  remunerative. 

Mr.  TITUS,  Probably  they  would  not  want  to  go  back  to  their 
former  occupations. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Mr.  Titus,  the  chairman  called  your  attention  to 
some  literature  that  says  that  the  State  of  New  York,  I  believe  it 


HOMES  FOR.  SOLDIERS.  643 

was  New  York — that  in  that  State  there  were  three  hundred  and 
some  odd  thousand  farmers — 375,000  farmers? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No;  people  engaged  in  agriculture.  There  are 
215,597  farms  in  New  York 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Well,  do  you  know  how  many  soldiers  this  bill  would 
place  on  the  farm  for  the  amount  of  money  that  is  authorized  to  be 
appropriated  ? 

Mr.  Trrus.  No. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  don't  know  that  the  amount  of  money  author- 
ized to  be  appropriated  by  this  bill  would  probably  not  take  care  of 
any  more  than  100,000? 

Mr.  TITUS.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  great  faith  in  the  deliberations 
of  this  body  of  men,  and  I  know  that  good  results  will  come  from  it 
to  aid  our  returning  soldiers,  and  if  my  services,  in  a  humble  way, 
humble  as  they  are,  can  be  of  any  service  to  you,  I  am  only  too  glad 
to  help  you. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  been  very  helpful. 

Gentlemen,  Mr.  McCracken,  former  Member  of  Congress  from 
Idaho,  wants  to  say  just  a  word. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  ROBERT  M.  McCRACKEN,  OF  IDAHO. 

Mr.  MCCRACKEN.  I  want  to  say,  gentlemen,  that  in  a  general  way, 
the  people  of  my  State  indorse  this  bill.  I  want  to  say  further  that 
a  large  number  of  the  people,  whom  I  represent,  are  returning 
soldiers.  We  sent,  out  of  a  population  of  400,000  people,  20,000  men 
to  the  front — at  least  most  of  those  men  went  to  the  front.  Now,  that 
is  a  big  percentage,  and  I  want  to  say,  too,  gentlemen,  that  out  of 
that  number  the  larger  percentage  of  them  were  farmers,  and  I  think 
I  am  safe  in  saying  that  the  larger  number  of  the  men  who  went  from 
all  the  States  "west  of  the  Mississippi  River  were  boys  that  were 
drawn  from  the  homes  of  farmers.  That  might  also  apply  to  the  men 
who  came  from  the  South,  the  larger  percentage. 

Now,  it  is  simply  idle  so  say  that  these  men,  many  of  them,  will 
not  be  attracted  by  any  proposition  which  this  Government  may 
make  with  reference  to  putting  men  upon  farms.  They  would  be  at- 
tracted by  it,  gentlemen,  and  since  the  matter  has  been  pressed,  and 
since  it  has  been  sponsored  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  there 
isn't  any  doubt,  too,  but  what  they  are  expecting  something  of  the 
sort.  Now,  of  course,  you  gentlemen  who  come  from  the  industrial 
sections  of  the  country  will  say :  "  Well,  we  have  fellows  that  prob- 
ably will  want  to  be  helped  to  get  a  home  in  the  city."  That  may  all 
be  true,  and  I  hope  that  some  means  will  be  devised  which  will  per- 
mit that  sort  of  thing.  But,  gentlemen,  after  all,  this  great  number 
of  men  who  were  drafted  and  who  went  to  the  front,  a  large  per- 
centage of  whom  are  farmers,  are  looking  to  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  to  give  them  some  sort  of  assistance,  and,  of  course, 
the  natural  thing  which  would  attract  them,  as  I  said  before,  would 
be  some  inducement  to  go  back  to  the  soil.  So  that  I  don't  want  to 
feel  that  this  committee  is  taking  a  wrong  course. 

It  seems  to  me  that  this  committee  has  chosen  a  very  wise  course 
in  trying  to  devise  some  sort  of  legislation  which  will  give  these  men 
an  opportunity  to  at  least  choose  the  occupation  of  a  farmer,  because, 


644  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

gentlemen,  after  all,  the  occupation  of  the  farmer  to-day  is  not  what 
it  was  40  or  50  years  ago.  He  has  a  great  many  facilities  which  per- 
mit him  to  enjoy  the  comforts  of  the  city  in  a  rural  community.  He 
has  the  automobile  and  he  has  the  telephone.  It  is  a  common  thing 
to-day  in  the  West  for  people  to  establish  town  sites,  to  have  their 
community  schools,  their  community  centers,  and  then  go  out  into  the 
different  sections  of  the  country  and  till  their  farms.  They  Avill  go 
back  for  15  or  20  miles.  That  is  farming  to-day  in  the  West,  and  it 
is  farming  in  a  large  portion  of  the  South. 

These  gentlemen  who  come  here  from  these  agricultural  associa- 
tions in  New  York,  I  want  just  to  remind  them  that  the  reason  they 
have  so  much  agricultural  country  in  the  State  of  New  York  that 
is  not  fitted  for  agriculture  has  been  demonstrated,  because  the 
young  men  of  New  York  State  have  left  there  and  have  gone  to  those 
sections  where  there  is  country  that  does  afford  them  an  opportunity 
for  agriculture.  Now,  isn't  that  the  most  natural  thing  that  they 
should  do  ?  And  certainly  this  Government  is  not  going  to  select  these 
barren  wastes  in  the  East,  nor  in  any  other  section  of  the  country, 
which  would  not  afford  them  the  opportunity  to  go  ahead  and  engage 
in  agricultural  pursuits. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  think  this  bill  would  take  them  West?  Is 
that  it  ? 

Mr.  McCRACKEN.  I  think  it  would  take  them  to  the  agricultural 
localities  of  all  sections  of  the  United  States  which  would  be  attrac- 
tive, and,  of  course,  those  sections  would  be  selected  by  the  Secretary 
of  the  Interior,  with  the  aid  of  the  Agricultural  Department,  don't 
you  see.  The  Government  of  the  United  States  is  not  going  to  send 
them  out  into  localities  where  they  can't  exist.  That  is  not  the  ob- 
ject of  this  bill. 

And  now  here,  coming  back  to  this  question,  I  simplj*  want  to 
make  this  plain  to  you  gentlemen—I  think  you  will  all  agree  with 
me,  you  gentlemen  upon  this  committee — that  in  all  opposition  that 
has  been  voiced  here  to  this  bill  there  has  not  been  a  specific  allega- 
tion to  show  wherein  the  bill  would  not  be  operative.  I  wish 
these  gentlemen  would  specify  wrherein  the  bill  would  not  be  practi- 
cable or  operative.  I  have  an  open  mind  and  I  am  willing  to  aid  in 
the  small  way  that  I  can  to  assist  the  committee  and  assist  Members 
of  Congress  to  find  some  way  which  is  a  better  way  than  the  way 
that  is  prescribed  in  this  bill. 

As  to  the  question  of  competition,  which  we  hear  urged  in  the  agri- 
cultural press,  that  it  might  make  competition — and  the  gentleman 
from  New  York  a  moment  ago  hinted  at  that,  that  certain  competi- 
tion might  arise  by  reason  of  this  increased  area  of  agriculture — 
I  just  want  to  say,  gentlemen,  that  that  is  mere  folly,  because  in  all 
those  Western  States  you  will  see  different  articles' of  merchandise 
bearing  the  brands  of  New  York  firms.  How  often  we  see  Beech- 
nut butter  and  Beechnut  meat  and  Beechnut  beans,  and  all  that  sort 
of  thing  out  in  the  West,  in  practically  even7  Western  State.  Those 
people  moved  out  there,  many  of  them  from  the  East,  and  they  are 
consuming  the  products  of  these  people  back  in  New  York  State, 
and  I  venture  the  assertion  that  we  have  firms  in  the  State  of  Idaho 
to-day  that  are  purchasing  in  the  aggregate  as  much  as  $20,000,000 
worth  of  merchandise  of  various  kinds,  including,  I  might  add  to 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  645 

that,  farm  machinery.  I  am  informed  that  we  stand  fifth  in  the 
purchase  of  automobiles,  and  a  good  many  of  them  are  Studebakers 
that  come  from  the  State  of  Indiana.  In  my  judgment  the  passage 
of  this  bill  will  encourage  not  only  farming,  but  it  will  encourage 
other  industries. 

You  very  well  know  the  number  of  Ford  automobiles  that  we  have 
in  the  West,  and  all  these  come  from  the  State  of  Michigan ;  and  that 
is  simply  one  illustration.  There  are  thousands  of  manufactured 
articles  which  come  to  our  people  in  the  West,  so  that  if  you  attempt 
in  this  small  way  to  aid  the  returning  soldiers,  you  have  aided  the 
industrial  sections  of  the  whole  United  States.  I  hope  no  one  will 
think  that  you  are  striving  in  any  way  to  augment  the  business  con- 
ditions of  any  particular  section  of  the  country,  because  all  sections 
of  the  United  States  will  naturally  enjoy  the  fruits  of  this  legisla- 
tion. 

I  don't  know  what  more  I  could  say,  other  than  simply  to  call  at- 
tention also  to  the  fact  that  the  gentlemen  who  have  preceded  me 
have  come  down  here  to  appeal  for  further  appropriations  for  count}' 
farm  agents.  Now,  why?  Simply  because  they  realize  the  value 
of  agriculture  in  their  own  community,  and  those  New  York  gentle- 
men expect  to  get  increased  appropriations  for  county  farm  agents. 
Of  course  we  have  county  farm  agents  all  over  the  United  States, 
and  why?  Simply  because  they  know  that  the  country  must  rely 
upon  the  industry  of  agriculture  for  the  larger  part  of  its  prosperity. 

If  there  are  any  questions  that  I  can  answer,  I  will  be  very  glad  to 
do  so. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  say  you  represent  the  returned  soldiers  of  your 
State? 

Mr.  McCRACKEN.  I  represent  what  is  known  as  the  Idaho  Recla- 
mation Association,  in  which  there  are  a  large  number  of  returned 
soldiers. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  said  you  thought  you  expressed  the  view  of  the 
great  majority  of  the  soldiers  of  your  State  who  were  returning  from 
the  war? 

Mr.  MC-CRACKEX.  I  believe  I  do. 

Mr.  XICHOLS.  What  makes  you  think  you  do? 

Mr.  McCRACKEN.  For  the  reason  that  many  of  them  are  agricul- 
turists and  are  looking  forward  to  this  kind  of  legislation.  They 
expect  it. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Now,  have  you  come  in  contact  with  them  to  explain 
this  bill  to  them? 

Mr.  McCRACKEN.  I  will  say  this,  Mr.  Nichols,  that  I  have  met  a 
good  many  of  them  in  camps.  I  was  a  soldier  myself  for  a  short 
period  of  "time,  and  I  have  met  them  as  they  came  back.  I  am  a 
member,  of  course,  of  their  own  local  association  in  my  home  city, 
and  I  know  it  is  the  thought  of  many  of  them  how  they  might  get  a 
small  tract  of  land  and  be  independent.  -  That  is  the  feeling  of 
many  of  the  fellows  I  have  talked  to. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  How  many  do  you  suppose  you  have  come  in  con- 
tact with  ? 

Mr.  McCRACKEN.  I  have  not  talked  to  a  groat  number,  but  I  have 
talked  to  enough  of  them  to  convince  me  that  they  express  the  senti- 
ment of  the  great  majority. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  How  many,  can  you  estimate? 


646  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  MoCRACKEN.  Oh,  probably  35  or  40.  They  come  into  my 
office  and  talk  to  me. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Did  you  explain  the  details  and  provisions  of  the 
Mondell  bill? 

Mr.  MOCRACKEN.  Certainly  not;  simply  because  the  bill  had  not 
been  introduced  until  the  19th  day  of  May,  and  the  public  was  not 
advised  of  its  provisions. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  How  many  soldiers  did  you  say  went  to  war  from 
your  State? 

Mr.  McCRACKEN.  About  20,000. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  And  you  think  the  majority  of  these  soldiers  were 
farmers  ? 

Mr.  MCCRACKEN.  The  great  majority  of  them  were  farmers; 
yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  And  they  desire  to  return  to  the  farm? 

Mr.  MCCRACKEN.  Unquestionably  they  have  that  in  view;  they 
will  doubtless  come  back  to  the  farm. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  And  they  desire  to  be  aided  by  the  Government? 

Mr.  MCCRACKEN.  Well,  they  would  desire  to  avail  themselves  of 
any  action  of  the  Government,  and  naturally  they  are  best  fitted 
for  the  particular  occupation  of  farming. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  How  many  would  you  say  of  the  20,000,  most  of 
whom  are  farmers,  would  want  to  avail  themselves  of  the  oppor- 
tunity afforded  in  this  measure  ? 

Mr.  MCCRACKEN.  Well,  I  think  your  question  is  hardly  pertinent 
— you  assume  that  I  possess  accurate  information.  I  don't  want 
you  to  assume  that;  neither  do  I  presume  to  speak  accurately,  but 
I  am  simply  speaking  in  a  general  way  from  the  conversations 
which  I  have  had  with  these  gentlemen. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Could  you  estimate? 

Mr.  MCCRACKEN.  Yes;  I  think  I  could  estimate  it.  I  think  I 
would  be  safe  in  saying  that  80  per  cent  of  them  would  be  glad  to 
avail  themselves  of  any  offer  the  Government  might  make  along 
agricultural  lines. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  To  acquire  a  home  for  themselves  ? 

Mr.  MCCRACKEN.  Yes. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  think  that  under  the  provisions  of  this  bill 
and  the  amount  of  money  that  is  authorized  to  be  appropriated,  that 
any  such  percentage  could  be  provided  for  under  this  measure,  under 
this  bill,  from  the  soldiers  of  your  State? 

Mr.  MCCRACKEN.  Why,  certainly. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  think  they  could  under  this  bill?  How  many 
soldiers  do  you  think  that  this  bill  will  take  care  of? 

Mr.  MCCRACKEN.  How  many  do  I  think  this  bill  will  take  care  of? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Yes. 

Mr.  MCCRACKEN.  I  want  to  say  this,  that  it  will  doubtless  take  care 
of  the  larger  number  of  the  men,  of  the  returning  soldiers,  who  de- 
sire to  pursue  agricultural  activities  throughout  the  whole  country. 
There  isn't  any  question  about  it,  and  just  as  was  intimated  here  a 
while  ago  by  Mr.  Smith,  the  Representative  from  Idaho,  pointing 
out  the  fact  that  there  is  a  large  number  of  men  who  will  want  to 
engage  in  agricultural  pursuits,  the  point  is  to  provide  for  and  take 
care  of  that  number;  don't  let  them  drift  back  in  the  city  and  be- 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  647 

come  helpless  there,  because  they  are  not  trained  along  vocational 
lines. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  know  that  under  the  authorization,  the  ap- 
propriation authorized  under  this  bill,  probably  no  more  than  100.- 

000  in  the  whole  country  could  be  taken  care  of? 

Mr.  McCRACKEN.  I  think  that  the  gentleman  is  mistaken  as  to  the 
number. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Well,  we  will  see  whether  he  is  or  not,  Mr.  Mc- 
Cracken.  Do  you  know  how  much  appropriation  this  bill  authorizes  ? 

Mr.  MCCRACKEN.  It  doesn't  authorize  enough;  I  will  say  that. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  How  much  does  it  authorize? 

Mr.  MCCRACKEN.  It  authorizes  $500,000,000  appropriation. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Mr.  Chairman,  is  it  the  plan  to  try  to  close  at  12  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  should  like  to. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Might  I  make  a  suggestion,  then?  I  just  met  here 
a  Mr.  Lehmann,  a  soldier  that  I  have  never  seen  before,  a  nice  young 
man  who  has  just  returned  from  France  and  bears  all  the  evidence 
of  the  hardships  of  war,  and  I  have  suggested  to  him  and  asked  him 
that  if  he  would  like  to  say  a  word  to  the  committee  on  this  bill,  we 
would  like  to  have  him,  and  I  ask  unanimous  consent,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, that  Mr.  Lehmann  be  given  a  few  moments — be  given  the  honor 
of  closing  the  hearings,  of  having  the  last  word  to  say  on  this  sub- 
ject. It  seems  to  me  that  would  be  entirely  appropriate. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  be  glad  to  hear  Mr.  Lehmann. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  If  Mr.  McCracken  is  through — I  did  not  intend  to 
interrupt  you,  Mr.  Nichols. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  No ;  I  will  be  glad  to  hear  him. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  will  say  that  Mr.  Lehmann  explains  that  he  is  not  a 
speaker  at  all;  he  doesn't  care  to  exhibit  any  oratorical  qualities, 
but  he  simply  wants  to  say  a  word  from  the  real  standpoint  of  the 
soldier. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  be  glad  to  hear  you,  Mr.  Lehmann. 

STATEMENT  OF  PVT.  EMILE  A.  LEHMANN,  COMPANY  D,  THREE 
HUNDRED  AND  TWENTY-SIXTH  INFANTRY,  UNITED  STATES 
ARMY. 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  Mr.  Chairman,  as  Mr.  Ferris  says,  I  haven't  much 
to  say,  but  I  have  met  together  with  quite  a  few  boys  that  were  in- 
terested in  this  bill,  as  far  as  we  have  had  it  explained  to  us  in 
France.  We  have  had  a  man  explain  it  to  use  as  best  he  could,  the 
details  of  the  bill,  and  we  have  seen  a  few  prints  in  the  papers  on 
it.  That  is  about  as  far  as  I  know  the  details  of  the  bill,  but  I  myself 
am  interested  in  getting  a  western  farm  home,  and  a  lot  of  the 
soldiers  are  who  have  been  with  me — they  are  also  interested,  and 

1  have  been  over  quite  a  large  area  of  western  land  that  undoubtedly 
would  be  put  under  some  of  the  projects  if  this  bill  passes.     I  have 
seen  the  good  qualities  of  this  land  and  I  know  what  can  be  produced 
from  it,  and  it  is  very  valuable  for  agricultural  purposes. 

Mr.  VAILE.  What  part  of  the  country  are  you  from? 
Mr.  LEHMANN.  I  come  from  Montana.    That  is  where  I  entered  the 
service  from.     My  folks  are  in  West  Virginia. 

Mr.  WHITE.  What  part  of  Montana,  what  county? 


648  .  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  I  have  been  around  Billings,  and  I  have  been  around 
Great  Falls  and  in  the  northwestern  part,  and  Kalispell,  and  I  have 
seen  quite  a  bit  of  the  State. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Don't  you  believe  that  there  is  a  great  deal  of  land  in 
Montana,  and  what  is  known  as  "bench"  land  that  could  be  very 
profitably  segregated  for  a  scheme  of  this  kind,  a  reclamation  scheme, 
without  great  expense  to  the  Government,  and  which  would  promise 
splendid  opportunities  to  the  young  men  ? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  There  is,  yes  sir ;  but  the  area  of  that  kind  of  land 
is  not  very  large.  It  would  not  give  the  opportunity  for  a  large 
project  like  there  is  in  Wyoming. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Don't  you  believe  that  such  projects  could  be  found 
in  Montana?  Don't  you  think  there  are  within  the  State  some 
projects? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  Well,  not  as  good  a  project  as  I  understand  this 
Idaho  project  would  be. 

Mr.  MAYS.  You  say  your  people  live  in  West  Virginia? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  West  Virginia;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Do  you  feel  that  you  ought  to  be  assisted  to  secure  a 
home  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  your  people  ? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  No. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Why  not? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  Because  the  land  in  the  immediate  neighborhood 
where  my  folks  live  is  not  of  very  good  agricultural  quality. 

Mr.  MAYS.  And  is  higher  in  price  that  other  land? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Who  would  you  have  do  the  deciding  for  you, 
yourself  or  some  Government  agent,  as  to  where  you  want  to  settle? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  I  would  want  to  decide  that  myself. 

Mr.  MAYS.  You  don't  understand  that  this  bill  dictates  to  you 
anything  about  where  you  should  go,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Idaho.  You  can  go  in  any  State  where  there  is  a 
project 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  boys  are  not  so  much  concerned  about  the  de- 
tails, the  working  out  of  the  thing?  What  you  want  to  see — what 
you  approve  is,  and  what  a  lot  of  the  boys  approve  is,  that  they 
would  like  to  be  home  owners  somewhere? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  And  if  the  Government  could  help  help  them  in  some 
manner,  you  feel  that  they  would  be  glad  to  take  advantage  of  it? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  And  as  to  the  locality  or  as  to  the  working  out  of  the 
machinery,  the  details  of  that  is  not  what  you  are  concerned  about  ? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Have  you  talked  to  a  great  many  soldiers  in  France  on 
this  subject? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MAYS.  And  you  noticed  considerable  interest  among  the 
soldiers ( 

Mr.  LKTIMANN.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Let  me  ask  you  this  question:  Is  or  is  it  not  true  that  a 
lot  of  soldiers  might  not  want  to  go  out  on  farms  to  work  as  farm 
hands,  but  they  would  go  out  to  work  if  they  had  the  Government 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  649 

promise  of  giving  them  a  home  and  letting  them  own  a  piece  of  land 
at  the  end  of  their  work? 

Mr.  LEHMAN x.  Why,  that  is  just  it.  There  is  a  lot  of  the  soldiers, 
a  lot  of  the  boys,  who  would  be  very  willing  to  go  onto  a  farm  and  go 
through  considerable  hardship  if  they  see  a  chance  where  they  could 
get  a  home. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  They  are  perfectly  willing  to  do  a  lot  of  hard  work  if 
they  had  the  Government's  promise  that  at  the  end  of  it  they  would 
get  a  home  that  they  could  own  themselves  ? 

Mr.  LEHMAXX.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Have  you  worked  on  a  farm? 

Mr.  LEHMAXX.  I  have  worked  on  a  farm  in  different  places  in  the 
northwest.  I  was  born  and  raised  on  a  farm  in  West  Virginia. 

Mr.  WHITE.  For  how  long  a  period  did  you  work  on  a  farm? 

Mr.  LEHMAN x.  Well,  at  different  times. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Altogether,  how  many  years? 

Mr.  LEHMAXX.  I  might  say  all  my  life. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Now,  that  is  very  good.  Don't  you  think  that  your 
experience  on  a  farm  would  be  a  great  advantage  to  you  in  engaging 
in  farming? 

Mr.  LEHMAXN.  Oh,  yes ;  it  would. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Indeed,  I  think  so. 

Mr.  LEHMAXX.  That  is  one  reason  why  I  went  over  several  States — 
worked  over  several  States — I  wanted  to  get  the  different  ideas,  and 
I  got  a  lot  of  good  ideas  from  different  localities.  Of  course,  in  one 
locality  the  same  idea  might  not  work  in  another  locality. 

Mr.  'WHITE.  And  speaking  for  yourself,  if  you  felt  confident  that 
you  could  succeed  finally  and  make  a  home,  you  would  be  willing  to 
undergo  a  great  deal  of  hardship  and  hard  toil,  would  you  not? 

Mr.  LEIIMAXX.  Certainly. 

Mr.  WHITE.  And  with  the  fixed  purpose  to  succeed  and  to  finally 
make  a  home?  That  is  the  idea  with  you,  is  it? 

Mr.  LEHMAXX.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Mr.  Lehmann,  of  course,  while  you  are  not  concerned 
with  the  machinery  that  will  put  this  plan  into  operation,  you  are 
concerned  in  how  much  one  of  these  farms  will  cost  you  ? 

Mr.  LEHMAXX.  Well,  that,  of  course,  depends  a  whole  lot  on  the 
different  localities  where  they  are  located. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  say,  but  you  are  concerned  in  how  much  it  will 
cost  you? 

Mr.  LEHMAXX.  Oh,  certainly. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  care  how  much  it  will  cost  you? 

Mr.  LEHMAXX.  To  some  extent;  yes  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  want  to  know  "how  much  you  are  going  to  pay 
for  this  farm  that  YOU  are  going  on? 

Mr.  LEHMAXX.  Well,  anybody  naturally  would  want  to  know  how 
much  he  would  have  to  pay  for  it,  but  that  part  of  it  is  easy  enough 
arranged  so  that  a  man  could  see  that.  And  as  long  as  the  boys  got  a 
good  square  deal.  I  don't  doubt  in  the  least  that  a  large  number  of 
them  will  be  willing  to  go  on  a  farm. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  How  much  do  you  think  this  would  cost  you? 

Mr.  LEHMAXX.  I  haven't  figured  that  out. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  know? 

Mr.  LEHMAXX.  I  haven't  gone  into  any  details  about  that. 


650  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  haven't  read  this  bill,  have  you? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  Not  the  latest  bill  out;  no. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  don't  know  how  much  it  would  cost  you  ? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  No. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  know  that  you  would  have  to  have  $1,200, 
approximately,  before  you  could  go  on  one  of  these  farms? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  Well,  that  seems  reasonable  enough  to  have — to- 
have  that. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  know  how  many  soldiers  that  you  have  met, 
and  have  talked  this  bill  over  with,  are  in  favor  of  the  proposition 
as  it  is  understood  now,  as  you  understand  it? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  No;  how  many  I  couldn't  say,  but  a  large  per  cent 
of  them,  I  should  say,  among  the  organizations  that  I  met. 

Mr.  VAILE.  You  are  not  so  much  concerned,  Mr.  Lehmann,  are  you, 
with  the  question  of  whether  it  is  going  to  cost  you  $1,200  or  $10,000, 
as  with  the  question  of  whether  you  will  get  value  for  your  money  ? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  That  is  the  point;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  also  understand,  Mr.  Lehmann,  that  you  have  a 
chance  to  work  and  earn  wages  to  pay  for  it? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Now,  Mr.  Lehmann,  you  think  that  the  Government 
should  extend  aid  to  the  soldiers  who  are  returning  from  the  war 
to  go  on  the  farms ;  do  you  think  that  the  Government  should  extend 
aid  to  the  thousands  and  hundreds  of  thousands  and  maybe  millions 
of  soldiers  who  are  from  city  homes,  who  have  lived  all  their  lives 
in  the  city?  Do  you  think  they  should  extend  some  kind  of  aid  to 
them? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  Yes;  they  should. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  don't  believe  it  should  be  restricted  entirely  to 
the  soldier  who  wants  to  go  on  a  farm  ? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  Well,  it  seems  that  they  all  should  have  a  chance, 
probably,  but  if  there  is  a  good  chance  for  them  on  farm  lands, 
which  would  improve  the  country,  it  seems  that  that  would  be  a 
good  thing  to  put  through. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  know  how  many  soldiers  this  plan  would 
take  care  of? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  No ;  the  number  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Did  you  just  happen  to  come  up  here  to-day? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Were  you  invited  up? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  Yes;  I  was  taken  in  on  the  way  here. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  By  whom? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  By  Mr.  Harris.  But  it  was  my  intention  to  come 
up  here,  and  I  just  happened  to  meet  him,  and  he  showed  me  up.  I 
wanted  to  get  some  information,  to  get  some  of  the  papers  and  the 
bill. 

Mr.  VAILE.  You  were  not  invited  in  here  until  after  you  came  up 
here  to  get  information? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  I  met  some  men  at  the  K.  C.  last  night  that  told 
me  about  it. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Mr.  Harris? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  Mr.  Harris? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Who  is  Mr.  Harris? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  651 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  One  of  these  gentlemen  here,  perhaps,  knows  him 
better  than  I  do.  I  haven't  met  him  before  last  night. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  you  were  not  invited  to  address  the  com- 
mittee until  you  happened  to  be  talking  with  Mr.  Ferris  here  in  the 
room? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  I  was  not  invited  until  I  was  here  in  the  room ;  not 
until  after  Mr.  Harris  left.  I  had  no  intention  of  addressing  the 
committee  at  all. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  hope  a  real  sun-burned  soldier  and 
a  real  man  who  has  seen  service  will  not  have  to  apologize  for  com- 
ing here,  but  if  he  does,  I  want  to  take  all  the  blame  for  having  him 
speak  here.  I  sat  behind  him  there  not  five  minutes  ago,  the  first 
time  I  ever  saw  him  in  my  life,  and  I  asked  him  to  appear  and  say 
something,  and  I  want  to  add  that  I  think  it  is  exceedingly  appro- 
priate that  one  of  these  4,000,000  boys  that  has  returned,  with  the 
real  harness  marks  of  war  on  him,  should  have  an  opportunity  to 
make  a  statement,  and  I  want  to  add  further  that  I  think  he  has  made 
a  very  creditable  statement,  and  as  one  member  of  the  committee,  I 
want  to  say  that  I  am  very  glad  that  he  has  made  this  statement,  and 
I  assume  that  must  be  the  view  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  agree  with  you  fully. 

Mr.  WHITE.  And  I  want  to  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  think  this 
young  soldier  has  been  one  of  the  best  witnesses  that  has  become  be- 
fore this  committee. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  think  so,  too.  He  is  a  real  fellow,  with  real  stripes 
on  him. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  think  we  all  feel  that  way. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  would  like  to  ask  the  soldier  one  more  question. 

Don't  you  think  that  whatever  might  be  the  plan  adopted  finally 
by  Congress  after  this  committee  has  reported — and  assuming  that 
a  plan  is  adopted,  as  we  all  think  there  should  be — don't  you  think 
that  the  element  of  success  would  largely  be  the  disposition  of  the 
individual  to  succeed  ?  That  he  would  have  to  have  a  fixed  purpose ; 
that  he  would  have  to  have  that  in  his  mind  and  thought?  In  other 
words,  if  he  was  thinking  this  thing  over,  as  you  have  been,  looking 
for  a  location,  that  would  be  one  of  the  important,  paramount  ele- 
ments of  success  in  his  case  ?  Don't  you  think  it  would  ? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  It  surely  would. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Don't  you  think  one  thing  further,  that  a  young  man 
like  yourself,  or  any  one  of  your  comrades,  if  he  had  had  that  in  his 
mind  and  was  willing,  as  you  say  you  are,  to  undergo  hardships 
through  a  long  period  in  order  to  build  up  a  home,  that  that  would 
be  a  safer  proposition  for  the  Government,  for  the  solvency  of  the 
investment,  the  Government's  investment;  that  the  Government,  in 
other  words,  would  be  less  likely  to  lose  in  that  case?  Do  you  agree 
with  that? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  I  don't  quite  understand  you. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  say,  the  young  man  who  had,  as  you  say  you  have,  a 
fixed  purpose  to  succeeded  wherever  he  might  locate;  that  was  fa- 
miliar with  the  circumstances  and  had  the  purpose  to  make  a  home, 
don't  you  believe  that  he  would  be  a  safer  bet  for  the  Government, 
that  the  Government  would  be  safer  in  loaning  him  money  than  it 


652  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

would  a  man  who  took  it  up  on  an  impulse  or  experiment  without  the 
technical  knowledge  that  you  have? 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  That  certainly  would  be  the  case. 

Mr.  WHITE.  That  is  my  question. 

Mr.  LEHMANN.  That  stands  to  reason.    That  is  very  plain. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  are  very  much  obliged  to  you,  Mr.  Lehmann. 

Gentlemen,  the  committee,  I  suppose,  will  stand  adjourned  until 
Tuesday  next. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Mr.  Chairman,  would  you  allow  Mr.  McCracken  to  be 
recalled  for  just  one  or  two  short  questions? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Certainly. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Mr.  McCracken,  I  am  not  familiar  with  the  agricul- 
ture of  your  State.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  this  question :  Are  there 
segregated  tracts  of  agricultural  land  in  your  State  for  sale  ?  I  mean 
here  and  there,  as  there  are  in  most  States,  that  are  well  adapted  to 
successful  cultivation  ?  I  mean  on  your  bench  lands.  I  mean  now,  to 
make  my  question  perfectly  plain,  a  tract  of  80  acres  or  100  acres? 
There  is  land  changing  hands,  is  there,  possibly  ? 

Mr.  MCCRACKEN.  Now  in  private  ownership? 

Mr.  WHITE.  Yes. 

Mr.  MCCRACKEN.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  WHITE.  That  is  what  I  wanted  to  know.  Now,  Mr.  Mc- 
Cracken, those  lands  are  good  agricultural  lands,  are  they  not,  upon 
your  bench  lands,  much  as  they  are  in  Montana  ? 

Mr.  MCCRACKEN.  We  think  they  are  better  than  they  are  in  Mon- 
tana. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Well,  if  they  are  as  good  as  they  are  in  Montana,  they 
are  about  the  best  in  the  world.  Those  lands  are  changing  hands 
constantly  ? 

Mr.  MCCRACKEN.  They  have  been. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Now,  Mr.  McCracken,  I  want  to  ask  you  this  ques- 
tion. In  a  case  where  a  soldier,  a  returned  soldier,  comes  back  to  his 
home  and  wants  to  resume  agriculture,  if  his  father  is  not  able  to 
stake  him,  but  he  has  the  ambition  to  go  ahead  and  succeed,  as  men 
must  have,  don't  you  think  one  of  those  tracts  would  be  a  good  invest- 
ment if  he  was  able  to  finance  it,  or  if  the  Government  would  assist 
him  in  financing  it? 

Mr.  MCCRACKEN.  Undoubtedly. 

Mr.  WHITE.  You  would  not  object  to  a  thing  of  that  kind,  would 
you? 

Mr.  MCCRACKEN.  Certainly  not. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Do  you  not  think,  Mr.  McCracken,  that  in  a  case  such 
as  I  have  suggested,  that  the  young  man  with  all  this  experience  of 
life  would  stand  a  very  good  chance  to  succeed? 

Mr.  MCCRACKEN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Well,  don't  you  believe  that  in  case  the  Government 
would  finance  him,  that  it  would  be  a  pretty  safe  bet  for  the  Gov- 
ernment ? 

Mr.  MCCRACKEN.  It  would. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Thank  you.    That  is  all. 

Mr.  MCCRACKEN.  I  want  to  thank  the  committee  for  hearing  me. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  we  thank  you  very  much. 


HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS.  653 

Mr.  McCRACKEN.  I  also  want  to  thank  Mr.  Nichols  for  his  interro- 
gations. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  stand  adjourned  until  Tues- 
day morning. 

(Whereupon,  at  12.30  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  committee  adjourned  until 
Tuesday  morning,  June  24,  1919. 


COMMITTEE  ON  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS, 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 
Washington,  D.  <7.,  Tuesday,  June  2^  1919. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock,  Hon.  N.  J.  Sinnott  (chairman) 
presiding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  meeting  was  called  for  the  purpose  of 
hearing  from  Mr.  Hallam.  He  was  invited  to  appear  pursuant  to 
the  order  made  at  the  last  meeting  of  the  committee,  on  motion  of 
Mr.  Nichols. 

STATEMENT  OF  F.  C.  HALLAM,  PRESS  REPRESENTATIVE,  WASH- 
INGTON, D.  C. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Mr.  Hallam,  it  was  at  my  request  that  the  invita- 
tion was  extended  to  you  to  appear  to-day. 

Mr.  HALLAM.  So  I  understand. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  And  because  of  certain  things  that  were  perhaps 
unintentionally  insinuated  in  the  remarks  that  were  made  regard- 
ing my  invitation  to  you,  I  want  to  say  to  you  that  I  have  no  criti- 
cism of  any  kind  of  you  and,  even  though  you  may  say  that  you 
have  represented  somebody  in  the  capacity  of  publicity  agent,  so 
far  as  I  am  concerned  you  have  a  perfectly  legitimate  right  to 
appear. 

Mr.  HALLAM.  Thank  you,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  And  I  want  it  understood  that  there  is  no  criticism 
of  you  implied  in  the  questions  I  ask,  regardless  of  what  anybody 
else  may  say. 

Mr.  HALLAM.  Thank  you,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Now,  I  would  like  to  ask  you,  Mr.  Hallam,  if  you 
were  the  author  of  some  literature  that  was  sent  to  the  Press  Club 
for  the  purpose  of  general  distribution  throughout  the  country  in 
favor  of  the  Mondell  bill,  which  this  committee  is  considering? 

Mr.  HALLAM.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Would  it  not  be  well  to  incorporate  in  the  record 
the  press  notice  of  June  19  ? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  think  so;  yes.  I  will  show  this  to  you  and  ask 
if  that  is  the  article  referred  to  ? 

Mr.  HALLAM.  Yes:  I  wrote  that. 

Mr.  Xicimi.s.  I  \\\\\  ask  thnt  that  be  placed  in  the  record. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Without  objection,  the  article  will  be  incorporated 
in  the  record. 

(The  article  referred  to  is  as  follows:) 

Pointing  out  that  there  are  large  areas  of  very  fertile  land  along  the  Missis- 
sippi Kiver  that  is  subject  to  occasional  overflow  and  areas  of  fertile  cut-over 
lands  in  the  Lake  States  as  well  as  the  South  that  can  be  reclaimed  to  make 


654  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

farms  for  soldiers,  Representative  Mondell,  of  Wyoming,  Republican  leader  of 
the  House  of  Representatives,  to-day  closed  the  testimony  in  favor  of  his  bill 
for  soldiers'  settlements  at  a  hearing  before  the  House  Committee  on  Public 
Lands. 

Mr.  Mondell  answered  arguments  that  have  been  made  against  certain  pro- 
visions of  the  bill.  He  asserted  that  it  would  enable  all  soldiers  who  want 
farms  to  obtain  them.  Taking  up  the  objection  that  the  bill  is  a  reclamation 
measure,  Mr.  Mondell  admitted  that  that  is  one  of  its  purposes. 

"  The  winning  of  America  from  Plymouth  Rock  to  the  Golden  Gate  has  been 
one  continuous  work  of  reclamation,"  said  Mr.  Mondell.  He  denounced  as  im- 
practical suggestions  that  the  Government  finance  soldiers  in  taking  isolated 
farms.  Such  plans  have  been  unsuccessful  in  Australia  and  other  countries. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  colonization  plan  as  proposed  in  his  bill,  under  which 
soldiers  will  be  located  in  communities  on  the  land,  has  been  proven  suc- 
cessful. 

The  Republican  leader  answered  a  number  of  questions  asked  by  members 
of  the  committee.  Every  advocate  of  land-settlement  plans  different  from 
those  contemplated  in  his  bill,  he  said,  has  admitted  the  dangers  and  difficulties 
they  involve.  Denying  that  farmers  oppose  the  community  soldier-settlement 
plan,  Mr.  Mondell  said  that  there  has  been  some  little  opposition  voiced  by 
"  agricultrists,"  whom  he  described  as  a  class  that  "  farms  the  farmers." 

Next  week  the  House  Public  Lands  Committee  is  expected  to  take  up  the 
Moudell  bill  for  consideration  and  an  early  and  favorable  report  on  it  is  looked 
for,  possibly  with  minor  amendments.  A  very  large  majority  of  the  committee 
will  vote  for  the  report,  after  which  there  may  be  a  meeting  of  the  Republican 
steering  committee  of  the  House,  of  which  Representative  Mondell  is  chairman, 
to  see  what  can  be  done  to  assist  the  bill  in  the  House. 

Meanwhile  Secretary  of  the  Interior  Lane  has  reported  favorably  to  the 
Senate  Committee  on  Public  Lands  upon  Senator  Smoot's  bill  for  soldiers'  land 
settlement.  This  measure  is  like  the  Mondell  bill  except  that  it  contains  a  pro- 
vision that  10  per  cent  of  the  wages  of  a  soldier  employed  in  constructing  the 
project  shall  be  withheld  to  form  a  fund  from  which  he  is  to  discharge  part  of 
his  obligation  to  the  Government  for  the  purchase,  improvement,  and  equip- 
ment of  a  farm.  Senator  Smoot  advocates  this  change  as  a  measure  to  en- 
courage thrift  among  the  solider  workers.  In  order  to  still  further  assist  them 
his  bill  provides  that  the  Government  shall  pay  4  per  cent  interest  to  the 
soldier  on  that  part  of  his  wages  so  withheld. 

Senator  Smoot  does  not  propose  immediate  hearings  on  the  soldiers'  land  bill 
before  his  committee.  Later  on  it  is  understood  that  H.  T.  Cory,  consulting 
engineer  in  charge  of  the  southern  district,  United  States  Reclamation  Service, 
will  appear  before  the  Senate  committee  and  tell  about  the  possibilities  offered 
in  the  South  and  elsewhere  under  the  bill. 

In  his  report  on  the  Smoot  bill,  Secretary  Lane  tells  of  the  great  interest 
manifested  by  southern  States  and  other  States  in  the  soldier-settlement  project 
and  the  preliminary  steps  they  have  taken  in  connection  with  it,  in  the  matter 
of  adopting  memorials  indorsing  the  plan,  axithorizing  cooperation  with  the 
Federal  Government,  appointing  commissions  to  study  the  land  situation  and 
to  assist  and  advise  the  Government,  and  otherwise.  The  Secretary  also  says 
that  soldiers',  commerical,  and  other  organizations  have  passed  resolutions 
favoring  the  plan. 

"  I  believe  this  measure  is  one  of  the  most  important  pieces  of  constructive 
legislation  before  Congress  and  earnestly  recommend  its  early  enactment." 
says  Secretary  Lane  in  his  report.  "  The  scope  of  the  bill  is  clearly  indicated 
by  its  title  and  its  enactment  will  help  the  soldier — 

"By  providing  him  with  employment  upon  his  separation  from  the  military 
service,  affording  him  an  opportunity  to  acquire  and  save  funds  necessary  for 
the  payment  of  the  first  installment  uix>n  his  farm. 

"  By  providing  him  with  a  chance  to  secure  and  improve  a  farm  home. 

"  Making  available  the  money  and  credit  needed  to  improve  and  equip  his 
farm. 

"  Reducing  the  cost  of  farm  buildings  and  other  permanent  improvements 
through  the  purchase  of  material  in  wholesale  quantities  Cor  cash. 

"Giving  the  soldier  an  opportunity  to  get  practical  advice  regarding  farming 
operations. 

"Permitting  of  the  organizing  of  community  settlements  for  more  effective 
buying  and  selling  by  the  settlers. 

".Making  farming  more  profitable  and  attractive  by  cooperative  organizations 
and  the  resulting  closed  social  and  bu  iness  relations." 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  655 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Have  you  any  objection  to  informing  this  committee 
if  you  were  employed  to  do  this  or  whether  you  did  it  on  your  ac- 
count. 

Mr.  HALLAM.  No;  I  have  no  objection. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Were  you  employed  to  do  it  or  did  you  do  it  on  your 
account  ? 

Mr.  HALLAM.  I  was  employed  some  time  ago  to  do  some  publicity 
work  in  connection  with  this  bill  and  some  other  matters. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Now,  have  you  any  objection  to  saying  who  em- 
ployed you? 

Mr.  HALLAM.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Will  you  state  who  employed  you  ? 

Mr.  HALLAM.  The  Southern  Settlement  &  Development  Organi- 
zation. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  What  is  the  Southern  Settlement  &  Development 
Organization  ? 

Mr.  HALLAM.  Why  it  is  chartered  under  the  laws  of  Maryland. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Is  it  a  private  corporation? 

Mr.  HALLAM.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  They  are  interested  in  having  this  bill  enacted  into 
law? 

Mr.  HALLAM.  The  organization  dates  back  some  years,  and  it  was 
formed,  as  I  understand  it,  to  promote  development  and  improve- 
ment work  of  various  kinds  in  the  South. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Is  it  a  private  corporation? 

Mr.  HALLAM.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  or  not. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  know  if  this  association  is  composed  of  men 
in  the  South  who  have  large  property  interests  and  who  might 
be  interested  to  the  extent  of  selling  this  land  to  the  Government, 
if  we  put  this  bill  through? 

Mr.  HALLAM.  I  understand  that  the  organization  is  made  up  of  a 
number  of  representative  citizens — bankers,  business  men,  educators, 
State  officials,  some  railroad  men.  and  various  others.  I  am  also 
informed  that  its  charter  distinctly  forbids  the  association  selling 
any  land. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Its  charter  may  forbid  it,  that  is,  as  a  corporation ; 
but  do  you  know  whether  or  not  the  membership  of  this  organization 
is  made  up  of  large  land  owners  in  that  part  of  the  country?  You 
would  not  say  that  it  is  not  made  up  of  men  who  have  land  they 
could  sell  under  this  bill. 

Mr.  HALLAM.  I  don't  know;  I  think  it  may  include  men  of  that 
class  in  its  membership ;  but  not  solely  of  those  men. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Not  solely ;  I  do  not  say  that,  but  a  great  many  men 
who  would? 

Mr.  HALLAM.  I  could  not  say  how  many. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  That  is  all  I  care  to  ask  you,  Mr.  tlallam ;  I  am  very 
much  obliged  to  you. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Does  any  member  of  the  committee  care  to  ask 
any  questions  of  Mr.  Hallam  ?  Then,  I  guess  that  is  all,  Mr.  Hallam. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  another  matter  I  wish 
to  call  to  the  attention  of  this  committee.  I  think  it  is  of  great  in- 
terest to  the  committee.  I  want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  com- 
mittee to  the  testimony  of  the  young  soldier  who  made  his  appear- 
133319—19 42 


656  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

ance  in  this  committee  room  Saturday  morning,  and  who  was  in- 
vited to  speak  by  Mr.  Ferris,  a  member  of  the  committee.  I  want 
to  make  the  statement  to  the  committee  that  this  young  man  who 
apparently  was  a  very  fine  young  farmer  soldier,  was  unconsciously 
being  made  use  of  by  a  man  representing  private  land  interests  in 
the  West,  men  who  have  private  interest  and  private  gains  at  stake 
in  the  enactment  of  this  bill. 

I  asked  Mr.  Lehmann,  as  I  recollect  his  name  to  be,  who  caused 
him  to  come  here.  There  seemed  to  be  some  little  indignation  on 
the  part  of  some  of  the  members  that  I  questioned  this  soldier.  Mr. 
Lehmann  gave  the  name  of  Mr.  Harris.  Of  course,  I  am  new  in 
these  land  reclamation  matters,  and  I  did  not  know  Mr.  Harris. 
Nobody  before  this  committee  seemed  to  place  Mr.  Harris.  I  now 
want  to  state  to  the  committee  that  the  Mr.  Harris  who  talked  with 
this  young  soldier  and  caused  this  young  soldier  to  make  his  ap- 
pearance before  this  committee,  as  he  said  in  answer  to  my  question, 
comes  from  Harding,  Mont.,  and  is  the  representative  of  the  Big 
Horn  Investment  Co. 

Now,  undoubtedly,  a  good  many  of  you  members  here  who  come 
from  the  West  know  more  of  the  Big. Horn  Investment  Co.  than  I 
do.  I  am  not  familiar  with  those  things.  I  may  know  more  about 
it  after  a  while.  But  this  man  who  prompted  this  soldier,  who 
made  his  lonely  appearance  before  this  committee  because  he  was  the 
only  private  soldier  to  come  before  this  committee — he  was  caused 
to  come  here,  undoubtedly  without  him  realizing  he  was  being  made 
use  of  by  the  talk  of  Mr.  Harris,  and  Mr.  Harris  represents  the 
Big  Horn  Investment  Co. 

After  making  that  statement  to  this  committee,  I  desire  to  make 
a  motion  that  Mr.  Harris,  whose  address  I  will  very  gladly  find  and 
give  to  the  clerk  of  this  committee,  or  the  chairman  of  this  committee 
if  he  desires  it.  be  requested  to  come  before  this  committee. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Pending  that  motion.  I  want  to  make  a  statement. 
Mr.  Chairman,  I  invited  that  red-haired,  sun-burned,  faded-out 
soldier  to  address  this  committee,  myself.  I  never  saw  that  soldier 
before  that  day,  and  I  have  not  seen  him  since. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  have  no  doubt  about  it. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  never  sawr  Mr.  Harris  to  know  him.  If  he  has  ever 
been  here  before  I  do  not  know  it.  I  never  knew  that  there  was  such 
a  person  on  earth.  I  never  heard  of  the  Big  Horn  Investment  Co., 
and  I  did  not  know  that  there  was  such  an  investment  company  on 
earth.  I  merely  saw  that  private  soldier  sitting  there.  The  hearings 
had  been  dragging  on ;  we  had  had  people  of  every  conceivable  kind 
before  this  committee,  presenting  their  views  to  us.  and  I  thought  it 
was  high  time  and  proper  that  a  real  soldier  who  had  the  battle 
marks  on  him  should  give  us  his  views.  And  I  went  over  and  sat 
down  by  him  and  invited  him  on  my  own  initiative  to  get  up  and 
say  a  word.  He  replied  to  me  that  he  was  on  here  and  he  merely 
came  in  to  see  what  he  could  learn  about  relief  for  the  soldiers:  that 
he  had  never  made  a  speech  in  his  life  and  did  not  know  how  to 
talk,  and  had  not  come  here  with  the  intention  of  making  any  state- 
ments. I  stepped  around  and  spoke  to  the  chairman  and  told  him 
what  I  had  done,  and  ho  told  me  he  was  here  and  it.  was  all  right  for 
me  to  have  expended  him  the  invitation,  and  the  chairman  very 
graciously  said  he  could  make  a  statement  and  he  was  asked  to  do  so. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  657 

I  feel  that  statement  is  necessary  in  answer  to  your  statement,  Mr. 
Nichols,  because  I  fear  your  statement  might  be  mistaken. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  am  glad  you  made  your  explanation. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  If  anybody  had  any  idea  of  having  the  soldier  appear, 
I  never  knew  of  it,  and  if  any  Mr.  Harris  invited  that  soldier  to 
come  here  and  see  if  he  could  learn  anything  about  the  bill,  he  never 
mentioned  it  to  me,  and  I  would  say  also  that  that  soldier  very 
reluctantly  consented  to  appear  and  evidently  did  not  come  here  to 
be  heard.  He  said,  "  I  can  not  speak,"  and  I  said,  "  Well,  you  are 
well  posted  on  this  matter,  and  get  up  and  say  what  you  know." 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  suggest  he  was  a  good-looking  soldier,  and  well 
picked  by  the  man  who  picked  him,  and  I  want  to  say  to  the  commit- 
tee that  I  accept  your  statement,  and  did  not  intend  to  convey  any 
suggestion  that  you  knew  anything  about  it. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  am  afraid  your  statement  left  that  impression. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  I  have  heard  iterated  and  reiterated  the  statement 
that  we  have  heard  from  only  one  private  soldier.  We  have  had 
reference  made  by  Secretary  Lane  here  to  others — to  replies  made 
by  80,000  soldiers  made  on  this  proposition,  and  we  could  read  here 
for  10  months  and  consume  two  hours  a  day  reading  from  lauditory 
letters — from  first-hand  testimony  now,  from  letters  covering  every 
phase  of  this  proposition.  So  it  is  all  balderdash  to  say  we  have 
not  heard  from  private  soldiers.  We  have  heard  more  from  private 
soldiers  than  from  anybody  else,  and  we  have  spent  more  time  up  one 
side  and  down  the  other  on  the  views  of  private  soldiers  than  from 
anybody  else.  And  what  is  the  use  of  getting  what  is  merely  the 
opinion  of  one  or  two  men,  when  we  have  80,000  ? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  That  is  not  my  purpose. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  What  is  our  purpose  of  pursuing  a  private  line  of 
this  kind,  as  to  how  that  soldier  came  here  to  give  his  testimony? 
Of  course,  it  might  be  that  he  came  here  because  of  some  suggestion 
of  somebody  else,  but  if  we  are  going  off  on  sidetracks — 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  We  are  going 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  To  thrash  out  issues  of  some  sinister  conspiracy  on 
the  part  of  some  big  private  company  to  use  a  stocking  horse  to  some 
in  here  and  knock  this  thing,  when  that  is  the  only  testimony  1 
know  of,  of  all  the  testimony  that  is  in  and  it  can  not  weigh  in 
the  consideration  of  the  testimony  as  a  whole.  It  looks  to  me  as 
if  it  would  be  absolute!}  ;i  waste  of  the  time  of  this  committee  to  go 
off  on  side  lines  of  that  sort  and  to  exploit  this  little  sinister  cam- 
paign that  evidently  somebody  was  put  up  to  do  something.  Now, 
if  you  are  going  on  to  do  that  (and  that  is  not  saying  this  man  did 
not  get  some  >u<r<restion  to  come  in  here)  I  think  it  is  high  time  we 
should  close  these  hearings. 

Mr.  BKXIIAM.  The  remark  has  very  often  been  indulged  in  in  this 
committee  of  the  fact  that  there  was  a  corrupt  propoganda  against 
this  bill. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  have  never  heard  the  term  "  corrupt "  used  here. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  Mr.  Benham,  that  term  has  not  been  used  once  that 
I  have  heard  of. 

Mr.  BEX  HAM.  You  have  not  always  been  here,  to  begin  with. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  What  do  you  mean? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  It  has  been  referred  to  as  the  propaganda,  and  the 
inference,  at  least,  on  many  occasions,  was  that  it  was  improper. 

Mr.  MAYS.  The  record  will  show  it? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  The  record  will  show  it. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Who  used  it? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  do  not  recall.  Possibly  not  in  the  language  I  have 
given,  but  it  was  mentioned  time  after  time  that  somebody  was  in- 
terested in  discrediting  this  bill  for  financial  reasons  and  all  that 
sort  of  thing.  Now,  there  are  a  good  many  things  that  some  of  us 
would  care  to  have  put  in  the  record  on  the  other  side  that  might 
possibly  be  illuminating  as  to  why  this  particular  bill,  in  this  par- 
ticular shape,  is  being  worked  for  so  assiduously.  I  think  Mr. 
Nichols's  motion  ought  to  prevail,  and  if  it  is  voted  down  it  will  not 
have  a  good  effect. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Mr.  Benham,  is  Mr.  Nichols's  idea  this 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Suppose  I  tell  you  what  my  idea  is. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  I  was  asking  Mr.  Benham. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  can  not  ask  him  what  my  idea  is. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  I  heard  part  of  his  statement,  and  I  will  state  it  and 
you  can  correct  me ;  Mr.  Nichols's  idea  seems  to  be  this,  that  you  have 
heard  from  nobody  except  one  private  soldier,  and  because  of  the 
fact  we  have  heard  from  one  private  soldier,  that  he  was  a  stalking- 
horse  and  came  in  here  unconsciously? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  .Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  deny  that  he  was  sent  here 
for  that  purpose,  although  I  know  nothing  about  the  facts,  because 
I  induced  him  to  speak  myself. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  How  do  you  know  he  was  not  sent  here  by  some 
one  else? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  do  not  know  if  he  was  sent  here  by  some  one  else, 
but  I  know  I  induced  him  to  speak  myself,  and  if  there  is  any  blame 
to  attach  to  that,  put  the  blame  on  me.  But  I  know  that  soldier  did 
not  want  to  talk.  I  saw  him  sitting  over  here,  and  I  went  over  and 
sat  down  by  him,  and  I  said,  "  Who  are  you?"  and  he  said,  "  My  name 
is  Lehmann,"  and  I  said,  "  Where  are  you  from  ?"  and  he  said,  "  I  just 
came  back  from  France."  I  said,  "  What  are  you  doing  here  ?"  He 
said  he  just  wanted  to  find  out  something  about  this  bill.  I  said  how 
did  you  know  you  were  going  to  find  out  anything  about  this  bill 
here.  He  said  through  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  I  said,  "  Would  you  like  to 
say  something?"  He  said,  "  I  am  no  speaker;  I  can  not  speak,"  and 
I  invited  him  to  get  up  and  tell  us  what  he  thought  about  it.  and  I 
turned  to  the  chairman  and  told  him  what  I  had  done,  and  the  chair- 
man said  it  was  very  proper. 

Now,  Mr.  Nichols,  I  think  you  draw  a  wrong  inference,  and  you 
do  the  soldier  an  injustice,  and  you  do  yourself  an  injustice,  because 
I  induced  that  soldier  to  talk  myself. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  did  not  induce  him  to  come  here  ? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  No;  but  I  induced  that  soldier  to  talk,  and  if  it  had 
not  been  for  me  he  would  not  have  said  a  word. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  situation  is  just  this:  This  soldier  came  before 
the  committee  on  the  invitation  of  Mr.  Ferris;  that  is,  he  was  invited 
out  of  the  audience.  He  told  the  committee  frankly  he  was  seeking 
information  about  this  bill,  about  this  legislation,  and  that  some  Mr. 
Harris  told  him  he  could  come  up  here  and  get  it.  Now,  the  sittia- 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  659 

tion  is  as  Mr.  Ferris  has  just  narrated.  I  "never  saw  that  soldier 
myself ;  I  never  heard  of  him  until  Mr.  Ferris  called  my  attention  to 
him.  I  never  heard  of  Mr.  Harris. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Would  that  soldier  have  made  any  response  or  had  a 
right  to  make  a  statement  here  of  any  sort  but  for  my  activity? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  would  not.  You  called  him  to  my  attention ; 
you,  and  you  alone.  I  can  not  think  that  soldier  was  sent  here  in 
connection  with  any  propaganda. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  How  do  you  know? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  know  from  Mr.  Ferris's  statement. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  He  did  not  tell  you  that  he  would  not  have  gotten 
up  unless  Mr.  Ferris  asked  him  ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Ferris  has  so  clearly  presented  the  matter  that 
there  can  not  be  any  doubt,  not  the  slightest  doubt  on  earth,  as  to  his 
statement  and  the  reasons  he  asked  him.  And  I  know  I  have  noticed 
a  couple  here  who  did  not  speak  (they  were  not  asked  to  speak),  and 
I  was  a  little  sorry  I  had  not  asked  them  after  they  had  left.  Mr. 
Nichols,  though,  has  raised  a  question  that  does  not  involve  Mr. 
Ferris. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Absolutely  not. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  there  is  a  Mr.  Harris  in  town  who  appeared  be- 
fore the  Water  Power  Committee  last  year  and  he  has  been  here,  I 
think  we  could  clear  up  the  matter  and  avoid  any  taint  in  the  record 
on  Mr.  Xichol's  proposition  at  all  if  Mr.  Harris  came  for  five  minutes 
and  told  us  what  he  knew  about  it. 

.The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Raker,  personally  I  do  not  see  where  there  is 
anything  to  clear  up. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  do  not  see  any  taint  in  this  record  here. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  The  whole  proposition  is  simply  this :  I  sat  here  and 
the  hearings  were  dragging  along,  and  we  had  had  every  conceivable 
view  presented  before  this  committee,  and  I  sat  over  here  and  glanced 
with  unrest  and  saw  that  poor  faded-out,  sunburned  soldier  sitting 
over  there.  I  went  over  and  sat  down  beside  him  and  asked  him  who 
he  was,  where  he  came  from,  and  if  he  did  not  want  to  say  a  word. 
And  I  had  no  idea  where  he  hailed  from;  I  knew  I  had  never  seen 
him  before,  and  I  have  not  seen  him  since  he  walked  out  of  this  room. 
I  never  saw  him  before  I  saw  him  in  this  room,  and  I  had  never 
spoken  to  him  before  I  spoke  to  him  in  this  room,  and  he  had  no  idea 
of  speaking  before  I  did  that.  And  I  feel  if  there  is  any  injustice 
or  any  calumny  in  inviting  a  soldier  who  is  sitting  in  the  audience  to 
say  a  few  words  to  this  committee  that  the  blame  ought  to  be  on  me. 

Mr.  WHITE.  There  has  not  been  any  insinuation  against  Mr.  Ferris. 
Mr.  Ferris  is  trying  to  clear  himself  of  a  charge  that  has  not  been 
brought  against"  him. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Did  you  hear  Mr.  Nichols's  statement? 

Mr.  WHITE.  Yes.  I  think  you  are  absolutely  clear  in  the  mind 
of  Mr.  Nichols  and  every  member  of  this  committee.  I  so  under- 
stand it- 
Mr.  FERRIS.  I  take  it  you  do,  but  it  goes  a  little  further  than 
that. 

Mr.  WHITE,  I  want  to  say  this :  I  do  not  care  as  far  as  the  testi- 
mony of  the  soldier  is  concerned  wlio  may  have  inspired  it,  whether 
Mr.  Harris  is  called  or  not.  I  questioned  Mr.  Lehmann  and  I  want 
to  say  to  you  frankly,  though  very  indiscreetly,  that  I  regard  Mr. 


660  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Lehmann  as  a  very  much  better  witness  against  this  bill  than  for 
it.  I  questioned  him  myself  and  I  intend  to  use  his  testimony.  It 
is  no  doubt  correctly  sent  down,  although  we  have  not  access  to  it. 
I  am  satisfied  and  I  am  glad  Mr.  Lehmann  appeared.  If  he  came  here 
as  a  champion  to  this  bill,  I  believe  that  unconsciously — I  believe  that 
he  came  with  an  honest  and  absolutely  disinterested  purpose. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  The  preponderance  of  testimony  here,  so  far  as  the 
number  of  witnesses  is  concerned,  has  been  for  or  against  the  bill, 
would  you  say  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  do  not  know.     I  am  beginning  to  analyze  that. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Will  you  say  this :  Don't  you  think  we  have  given  as 
full  opportunity  to  the  opponents  of  the  bill  as  to  the  proponents? 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  will  answer  that  question,  Mr.  Elston,  in  this  way : 
I  think  the  witnesses  that  have  appeared  here  for  this  bill,  if  they 
might  be  so  designated  as  witnesses  for  this  bill,  have  been  much 
more  astute ;  they  have  had  themselves  better  in  hand ;  they  have  had 
a  clearer  idea  of  their  testimony  and  how  to  present  it;  but  I  am 
perfectly  satisfied,  and  I  think  those  whose  testimony  has  indicated 
that  they  were  not  so  favorable  to  this  bill  in  its  present  form,  while 
not  so  clearly  presented,  not  so  perspicuously  and  explicitly,  it  has 
been  received  and  fairly  set  down  and  I  am  satisfied. 

Now  you  might  have  gotten  the  idea,  from  some  of  the  questions 
I  have  asked,  that  I  am  not  predisposed  in  favor  of  this  bill  as  it 
stands.  But  that  is  not  now  a  question  for  discussion ;  I  will  present 
that  at  the  proper  time.  I  do  not  want  to  use  and  have  not  used  the 
time  of  this  committee  with  irrelevancies ;  but  I  have  followed  the 
testimony  as  closely  as  any  of  you.  While  possibly  not  as  well  able 
to  comprehend  it,  being  untrained  in  matters  of  this  kind  in  a  con- 
gressional committee,  I  have  done  the  best  I  could  to  follow  all  this 
testimony  and  I  am  satisfied  with  Mr.  Lehmann's  testimony.  And  at 
the  proper  time  I  will  give  it  an  analysis  drawn  from  it  as  stated 
here. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  did  not  complete  my  statement. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Mr.  Ferris,  before  you  leave :  I  want  to  say  I  have 
a  very  high  personal  regard  for  Mr.  Ferris,  and  if  there  was  any- 
thing in  my  suggestion  that  inferred  anything  antagonistic  to  Mr. 
Ferris,  or  questioning  Mr.  Ferris's  integrity  or  sincerity  in  this, 
then  I  hope  I  will  certainly  not  be  understood  in  that  way.  Be- 
cause I  do  not  have  any  question  of  Mr.  'Ferris's  sincerity  in  this 
proposition.  But  I  do  want  to  say  to  the  committee  in  reply  to  what 
Mr.  Elston  says,  that  even  Mr.  Ferris  appeared  to  think  it  would 
bo  a  good  thing  to  call  another  soldier.  Even  after  we  have  heard 
all  the  people  Mr.  Elston  says  Secretary  Lane  submitted  to  us.  Mr. 
Ferris  thought  it  a  good  thing  to  hear  another  soldier  and  to  close 
the  hearings  with  the  testimony  of  a  private  soldier,  because  we  had 
not  heard  from  a  private  soldier  up  to  that  time.  Now,  I  wanted 
to  ask  Mr.  Harris  to  appear,  and  I  am  surprised,  and  do  not  believe 
that  the  committee  will  refuse  to  hear  Mr.  Harris.  And  I  want  to 
ask  seriously  of  this  .committee  if  they  are  not  interested  and  do 
not  think  they  should  call  a  man  before  this  committee  if  it  is  sus- 
pected that  that  man  is  representing  a  private  interest  that  will 
have  great  gain  as  the  result  of  the  enactment  of  this  law,  and  who 
has  shown  activity  in  spreading  favorable  propaganda  to  I  he  soldiers 
regarding  this  bill — if  Mr.  Ferris  and  every  one  elesc  on  this  com- 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  661 

mittee  does  not  think  that  this  man  should*  be  asked  to  come  here  and 
say  who  he  represents,  and  why  he  believes  it  is  necessary  to  go 
around  privately  and  induce  soldiers  to  come  before  this  committee 
in  support  of  a  bill  that  is  aimed  to  aid  the  soldiers? 

Mr.  MAYS.  Do  you  have  any  evidence  that  he  persuaded,  on  his 
own  initiative,  this  soldier  to  appear  here? 

Mr.  XICHOLS.  I  have  every  reason  to  believe 

Mr.  MAYS.  What  is  the  use  of  fooling  away  the  time  of  the  com- 
mittee if  you  do  not  have  any  evidence? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Shall  I  answer  that  question? 

Mr.  MAYS.  You  have  not  answered  it  yet. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  Mr.  Harris — I 
know  that  he  talked  to  Mr.  Lehmann  and  I  know  he  talked  to  other 
soldiers  in  regard  to  this  bill. 

Mr.  MAYS.  That  is  not  the  question  I  asked  you. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  What  was  it  ? 

Mr.  MAYS.  The  question  I  asked  was,  if  you  have  any  evidence 
that  he,  upon  his  own  initiative,  went  to  this  soldier  and  persuaded 
him  to  come  here  ? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Let's  get  him  here  before  this  committee  and  find 
out. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  perfectly  willing,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned, 
to  have  Mr.  Nichols  or  anyone  else  attempt  to  draw  any  adverse  in- 
ference from  this  situation  that  they  please.  As  I  understand,  your 
view,  Mr.  Ferris,  is  against  prolonging  this  hearing  for  this  spe- 
cific purpose,  or  for  any  other  purpose. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  That  is  it  exactly.  I  leave  my  vote  with  the  Chair- 
man. There  is  a  very  short  statement  I  want  to  read  into  the  record 
before  this  hearing  is  closed,  and  I  presume  I  will  have  the  right 
to  print  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  will  have  the  right  to  print  that. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  am  in  favor  of  expediting  this  matter  as  much  as 
possible,  but  I  want  to  say  that  I  am  going  to  ask  permission  of  the 
committee  to  present  a  couple  of  letters  showing  that  people  all  over 
the  country  are  urging  this  legislation — chambers  of  commerce, 
boards  of  trade,  and  all  kinds  of  organizations,  women's  civic 
clubs,  women's  organizations,  and  church  organizations — doing 
what  they  can  to  inform  the  public  of  the  real  merits  of  this 
bill.  And  there  is  nothing  wrong  in  that;  it  is  perfectly  right 
and  proper.  But  the  insinuation  this  morning  is  that  Mr.  Har- 
ris, not  in  a  proper  way,  but  in  an  improper  way,  induced  this 
man  to  come  before  this  committee  because  of  some  personal  in- 
terest. Now,  in  justice  to  Mr.  Harris,  if  he  is  the  same  man  I  think 
he  is,  who  appeared  before  the  Committee  on  Water  Power,  I  saw 
him  in  town  here  two  or  three  times  myself  within  the  past  week, 
and  I  think  in  justice  to  him  he  ought  to  be  given  the  opportunity 
to  make  a  statement  before  this  committee  so  that  there  can  not  be 
any  implication  against  anyone  in  regard  to  this  legislation. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Harris? 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  do  not  know  if  it  is  the  same  one.  But  he  is  from 
Montana,  in  relation  to  the  Big  Horn  matter.  He  is  here  looking 
after  a  matter  before  the  Land  Department,  and  he  appeared  before 
the  Water  Power  Committee  and  made  quite  a  lengthy  statement. 
He  was  introduced  by  Miss  Rankin,  and  I  think  also  by  Senator 


662  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Walsh  and  by  Senator  Myers.  And  I  just  felt  when  this  matter 
came  up  that  there  is  really  nothing  for  anybody  to  feel  hurt  about  it, 
and  so  far  as  Mr.  Ferris  is  concerned,  his  position  is  beyond  question. 
Nobody  could  question  it.  But  Mr.  Nichols's  charge  is  that  Mr. 
Harris,  as  I  would  take  it,  improperly  induced  this  soldier  to  come 
here.  So  far,  nothing  of  that  kind  has  occurred,  and  I  would  just  like 
to  see  the  hearings  not  closed  with  anything  like  that  pending,  be- 
cause we  have  never  had  anything  like  that.  But  I  believe  there  is 
something  you  did  not  get — it  may  not  amount  to  anything  on  earth 
as  far  as  this  bill  is  concerned — but  I  just  hope  in  the  interest  of 
harmony  and  in  the  interest  of  giving  everybody  a  chance,  and  it 
won't  take  possibly  15  minutes,  just  to  take  care  of  that,  that  you  will 
call  Mr.  Harris.  I  just  offer  that  as  a  suggestion. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  would  just  like  to  inquire  if  Mr.  Harris  could  be 
invited  at  this  particular  hour  to  come  and  answer  the  question  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Personally,  I  do  not  know  Mr.  Harris;  I  do  not 
know  where  he  is  nor  his  address.  Do  you  know,  Mr.  Nichols? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  do  not  know  Mr.  Harris's  address,  but  I  can  ob- 
tain it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  am  just  advised  that  Mr.  Harris  was  seen  within  15 
minutes,  and  I  just  make  that  suggestion  as  a  matter  of  harmony  and 
so  as  to  leave  no  bad  taste  in  anyone's  mouth.  I  know  of  another 
matter  of  record  like  this  and  it  was  the  very  next  day  we  got  the 
whole  thing  in  by  the  men  themselves  coming  in  before  the  com- 
mittee, and  they  made  a  comprehensive  presentation  to  be  referred  to 
by  this  committee  and  other  committees  in  the  Senate,  and  I  imagine 
this  is  the  way  this  will  all  turn  out. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Personally,  I  have  no  objection,  Mr.  Raker,  but  I 
did  want  to  conclude  the  hearing,  and  to  conclude  to-day,  with  Mr. 
Hallam's  testimony.  But,  in  view  of  what  Mr.  Raker  states,  it  may 
be  best  to  have  him  appear  before  the  committee. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Judge,  prefatory  to  your  remarks  on  the  subject  be- 
fore the  committee  (the  invitation  to  Mr.  Harris)  you  stated  that 
there  was  a  great  interest  in  this  bill,  a  strong  demand  that  it  should 
be  passed.  Do  you  speak  of  the  Mondell  bill  especially  or  do  you 
speak  of  legislation  for  the  benefit  of  the  soldier? 

Mr.  RAKER.  May  I  answer  in  my  own  way,  Mr.  Chairman  ?  To  an- 
swer that  intelligent!}',  the  general  principles  of  the  Mondell  bill  were 
in  a  bill  presented  to  the  House,  reported  by  the  Committee  on  Irri- 
gation at  the  last  session,  and  by  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands, 
embodying  the  general  principles,  known  as  the  Lane  soldiers'  home- 
stead and  settlement  bill.  The  public  were  advised  of  the  contents  of 
that  bill.  The  present  Mondell  bill  contains  a  few  additions  that 
were  not  in  that  bill,  and  the  other  bills  before  this  committee  of  Mr. 
Ferris,  Mr.  Taylor,  myself,  and  several  others  embodied  the  general 
principle.  So  that  the  general  sentiment,  as  I  gather  it  from  home, 
in  talking  with  the  soldiers,  and  talking  with  men,  and  from  letters, 
memorials,  and  resolutions  received  from  the  West  and  other  places, 
is  that  they  are  generally  in  favor  of  the  provisions  of  the  bill  as  pro- 
mulgated by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  in  substance  now  known 
as  the  Mondell  bill,  because  the  public  has  it  by  that  name.  And  I 
will  read  a  resolution  here  in  answer  to  your  question.  Here  is  a 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  663 

letter  from  the  Consolidated  Chamber  of  Commerce,  of  Sacramento, 
Calif.: 

JUNE  16,  1919. 
Hon.  JOHN  E.  RAKER, 

Congressman  from  the  State  of  California,  Washington,  D.  C. 
DEAB  SIR:  Inclosed  copy  of  resolution  adopted  unanimously  by  our  board  of 
directors,  which  explains  itself. 

We  are  overwhelmingly  and  unanimously  for  this  movement  and  know  that 
it  will  bring  great  benefit  to  almost  the  whole  of  northern  California. 

This  project  seems  wholly  practical,  and  while  there  is  apparently  some  oppo- 
sition to  it,  this  opposition  is  so  small  that  it  should  not  be  permitted  for  a 
moment  to  stand  in  the  way  of  the  far  greater  number  of  people,  especially  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  those  who  may  be  damaged  will  be  protected,  we  believe,  to 
their  satisfaction. 

It  may  be  of  interest  to  you  to  know  that  even  in  that  section  where  there  is 
opposition,  or  some  opposition  may  develop,  that  they  are  not  united.    A  great 
many  people  in  that  section,  who  are  supposed  not  to  favor  the  project,  are 
either  lukewarm  or  strong  for  it. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

CONSOLIDATED  CHAMBER  OF  COMMERCE, 
H.  S.  MADDOX,  General  Secretary. 


Resolved,  That  the  consolidated  chamber  of  commerce  heartily  indorse  and 
approve  bill  (H.  R.  487)  introduced  by  Mr.  Mondell,  of  Wyoming,  to  be  known 
as  the  national  soldier  settlement  act,  and  embodying  the  latest  and  most  com- 
plete development  of  the  great  plan  proposed  by  Hon.  Franklin  K.  Lane,  Secre- 
tary of  the  Interior,  looking  to  the  reclamation  of  arid,  swamp,  and  cut-over 
lands  for  the  primary  purpose  of  providing  employment  and  rural  homes  for 
those  who  have  served  in  the  military  forces  of  this  Nation  during  the  recent 
Great  War ;  and  it  was  further 

Resolved,  That  we  especially  indorse  and  approve  this  bill  in  its  present  form 
as  admirably  drawn  to  enable  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  through  the 
authority  which  it  vests  in  him,  to  adequately  protect  and  conserve  the  inter- 
ests of  soldier  settlers  upon  lands  to  be  reclaimed  and  developed  under  its  pro- 
visions ;  that  we  favor  the  passage  of  this  measure  authorizing  appropriation  to 
the  full  amount  of  $500,000,000  as  proposed  therein,  and  that  we  believe  this 
vast  sum  is  needed  for  this  work  and  should  be  authorized  at  the  earliest 
practicable  date;  and  be  it  further 

Resolved,  That  certified  copies  of  this  resolution  be  forwarded  to  Hon.  Frank- 
lin K.  Lane,  Secretary  of  the  Interior ;  to  Hon.  Frank  W.  Mondell,  author  of  the 
bill ;  and  to  the  representatives  of  California  in  the  Senate  and  the  House  of 
Representatives. 

,T.  LUBIN,  Chairman. 
H.  S.  MADDOX, 
GEO.  D.  HUDNUTT. 

That  will  answer  the  question  directly  and  I  think  cover  my 
answer  fully.  That  is  the  general  concensus  of  opinion. 

Mr.  WHITE.  That  is  the  expression  of  opinion  of  the  chamber  of 
commerce.  I  am  very  glad  to  have  that  in  the  record,  Mr.  Raker. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Right  in  that  connection  I  would  like  to  read  into  the 
record,  as  bearing  directly  on  this  point,  a  letter  from  a  man  who  is 
familiar  with  the  West,  who  is  familiar  with  the  irrigation  projects, 
and  knows  what  such  development  means.  I  will  insert  it  in  the 
record  or  read  it  as  the  committee  desires.  But  I  know  him  person- 
ally ;  he  is  a  man  of  great  ability,  and  of  great  experience  and  learn- 
ing. Without  objection,  I  will  put  it  in. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

(The  letter  referred  to  is  as  follows:) 

STOCKTON,  CALIF.,  June  2,  1919. 
Hon.  JOHN  E.  RAKER, 

Representative,  Congressional  Biiildinft,  Washington,  D.  C. 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  I  write  you  on  behalf  of  Secretary  Lane's  soldier  settlement 
bill  and  solicit  your  careful  reading  of  this  communication  and  your  hearty  sup- 


664  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

port  of  the  said  bill,  as  its  passage  involves  the  material  prosperity  of  a  splendid 
section  of  California. 

If  this  bill  passes  and  the  appropriation  is  made,  it  is  proposed  by  the  De- 
partment of  the  Interior  to  add  a  second  unit  to  the  original  Orland  irrigation 
unit  in  Glenn  County,  which  is  now  under  a  United  States  Government  irriga- 
tion system. 

The  new  unit  will  put  water  upon  an  additional  20,000  or  more  acres  of  land 
which  is  now  practically  unproductive,  or  produces  very  inferior  crops  of 
wheat  and  barley  occasionally,  but  which  with  water  is  already  proven  to  be 
one  of  the  best  producing  sections  of  varied  crops  in  the  entire  State  of  Cali- 
fornia. 

This  second  Orland  unit  proposed,  being  under  the  same  management  as  the 
present  unit  and  adjoining  the  present  unit,  will  not  be  an  experiment,  and 
will  be  more  economically  developed  and  administered. 

I  was  'personally  acquainted  with  the  lands  under  the  present  Orland  unit 
before  the  United  States  Government  turned  water  upon  them.  It  was  a  dry, 
barren,  and  gravelly  soil,  with  an  occasional  thin  wheat  or  barley  crop.  All  the 
farmers  were  forced  to  possess  and  cultivate  large  holdings  in  order  to  make  a 
living.  At  that  time  the  land  now  under  the  Orland  project  had  50  owners, 
to-day,  after  12  years,  there  are  750  landowners  of  that  same  section,  with 
attractive  homes  and  all  prosperous. 

The  Orland  section  is  to-day,  as  I  saw  upon  a  recent  visit,  one  of  the  most 
beautiful  and  productive  areas  in  all  California,  and  water  did  it.  Here  you 
will  to-day  find  in  great  abundance  and  of  the  finest  quality  crops  of  alfalfa, 
almonds,  olives,  oranges,  lemons,  grapefruit,  prunes,  peaches,  apricots,  apples, 
berries,  and  corn. 

The  dairy  industry  is  rapidly  developing,  and  the  monthly  output  of  butter 
alone  is  worth  more  than  the  annual  yield  of  grain  before  the  section  was  put 
under  irrigation. 

The  Orland  farmers  are  growing  the  finest  breeds  of  live  stock  extensively 
been  use  the  food  problem  is  solved  by  water.  Cows  hogs,  and  chickens  are 
enriching  their  owners. 

For  the  first  three  months  of  1919  there  was  shipped  from  Orlnnd  carloads 
of  produce  as  follows:  Alfalfa  hay  and  meal,  46  cars;  grain,  29  cars;  live 
stock,  46  cars ;  oranges,  1  car ;  butter,  233,600  pounds ;  poultry,  45,800  pounds ; 
eggs,  54,640  dozen. 

The  population  of  the  town  of  Orland  as  well  as  of  the  surrounding  section 
has  been  largely  multiplied  by  a  splendid  patriotic,  industrious,  and  now  pros- 
perous citizenship. 

Under  the  regulations  governing  the  present  Orland  unit  the  land  owners 
must  reimburse  the  Government  for  the  cost  and  maintenance  of  the  irrigation 
system.  All  payments  for  building  and  maintaining  the  system  have  been 
promptly  met,  and  in  all  the  years  not  a  single  acre  has  become  delinquent  in 
its  payment.  This  is  a  record  unsurpassed. 

What  has  been  done  in  Orland  \init  No.  1  will  be  done  in  Orland  unit  No.  2 
if  you  will  support  this  bill  and  allow  the  appropriation. 

The  land  proposed  to  be  irrigated  in  Orland  unit  No.  2  is  practically  worn 
out,  or  otherwise  useless  for  wheat  and  barley,  but  productive  with  water  for 
both  citrus  and  deciduous  fruits. 

There  is  water  in  abundance  near  by  in  the  mountains  weft  of  Orland,  and 
the  preliminary  surveys  have  all  been  made  by  the  Government,  proving  that 
it  is  practicable  to  undertake  the  irrigation  of  an  additional  unit  of  20,000 
acres  under  United  States  Government  regulation. 

The  Legislature  of  the  State  of  California  has  already  passed  its  cooperative 
bill  as  provided  in  the  Lane  soldier  settlement  bill,  and  the  farmers  in  the 
section  proposed  to  be  irrigated  are  willing  to  sign  up  and  agree  to  the  plans 
proposed  by  the  Government. 

No  plan  would  be  more  feasible  and  no  place  more  suitable  for  our  returned 
soldiers,  sailors,  marines,  and  others  to  locale  than  in  this  section  suggested. 

Secretary  of  the  Interior  Franklin  K.  Bane  strongly  favors  the  plan  to  open 
a  second  Orland  unit  to  irrigation. 

As  Representatives  of  California  in  our  National  Congress,  I  am  stire  we 
can  count  upon  your  hearty  support  of  this  men  sure  by  your  voice  and  vote, 
that  will  materially  aid  in  developing  a  splendid  section  of  California,  and 
encourage  the  settlement  of  these  arid  lands  and  inspire  the  development  of 
irrigation  projects. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  665 

For  the  sake  of  encouraging  soldiers  and  others  to  purchase  land  and  de- 
velop it  on  an  easy-payment  plan,  as  suggested  in  this  bill,  and  in  order  to 
develop  the  great  argicultural  and  horticultural  interests  of  California,  as  a 
citizen,  native  of  the  State,  I  ask  your  hearty  support  of  this  bill  and  the 
appropriation  provided  hereby. 
Very  sincerely, 

A.  C.  BANE. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  asked  permission  of  Mr.  Ferris  before  he  left  the 
room,  and  I  now  ask  permission  of  the  committee  to  have  the  letter 
sent  to  members  of  the  committee,  I  assume  by  Mr.  Ferris;  that  is, 
a  copy  of  the  letter  received  by  him  from  a  private  soldier  on  this 
subject — I  ask  permission  for  that  to  go  in. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Without  objection,  it  will  go  in. 

(The  letter  referred  to  is  as  follows:) 

DUNCAN,  OKLA.,  June  12,  1919. 
Hon.   SCOTT  FERRIS, 

House  of  Representatives. 

MY  DEAR  SIB  :  I  am  a  discharged  soldier  of  the  United  States  and  I  do  not 
favor  the  plan  for  soldiers'  homesteads  as  it  now  stands.  I  do  not  think  it  is 
practical,  nor  do  I  think  it  will  ever  prove  satisfactory.  We  do  not  want  to 
be  torn  up  from  our  homes  like  the  Arcadians  and  scattered  anywhere  over 
the  United  States.  Nowhere  have  I  talked  with  a  soldier  who  favored  the  plan. 
Some  of  the  men  who  have  always  lived  in  cities  might  like  that  plan;  if  so, 
let  them  have  it,  but  for  we  soldiers  who  have  farmed  before  and  who  have  a 
fanning  knowledge  of  certain  sections  and  communities,  let  us  have  ours  this 
way: 

Advance  to  us  capital  to  buy  a  farm  up  to  100  per  cent.  (If  the  State  can  do 
that  for  its  tenants,  why  can't  the  Government  for  its  soldiers?)  Fix  a  certain 
per  cent  as  the  amount  to  be  paid  each  year  and  limit  the  years  to  20,  40,  or 
whatever  seems  best,  and  sell  farms  to  the  soldier  on  the  installment  plan, 
free  of  interest.  If  the  Government  don't  look  out,  it  is  going  to  find  that  the 
States  have  taken  several  strides  ahead  of  it  and  is  doing  more  for  its  farmers 
than  the  United  States  is  for  its  soldiers.  I,  for  one,  would  rather  get  a  home 
under  the  plan  Oklahoma  has  worked  out  then  utider  the  soldiers'  home  bill  as 
it  stands. 

Lend  us  the  money  for  land  and  improvements,  free  of  interest,  but  with 
a  specified  per  cent  to  be  paid  each  year.    Let  us  choose  the  farm  we  buy  and 
the  community  where  we  live,  and  you  will  find  us  satisfied. 
Very  respectfully, 

JOHN  W.  OWEN. 

Mr.  BARBOTJR.  While  we  are  on  this  subject  I  would  like  to  say 
that  yesterday  I  received  a  telegram  from  the  American  Legion, 
which  is  a  soldiers'  organization  in  central  California,  heartily  in- 
dorsing the  Mondell  bill  and  urging  its  passage.  I  will  say  that 
some  time  ago  I  sent  this  organization  a  copy  of  this  bill  with  a  very 
general  description  of  its  purposes  and  asked  them  to  advise  me  as 
to  their  attitude  toward  it.  This  telegram  came  yesterday,  I  pre- 
sume as  a  reply  to  my  communication.  I  will  read  that  telegram, 
or  place  it  in  the  record,  if  it  is  desired. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Without  objection  it  will  be  inserted  in  the  record. 

Mr.  Lonergan  sent  me  yesterday  a  statement  cf  the  position  of 
himself  and  his  State  toward  this  matter.  If  there  is  no  objection  to 
that  being  put  in  the  record,  I  will  hand  it  to  the  reporter. 

(The  statement  referred  to  is  as  follows:) 

STATEMENT   OF   HON.   AUGUSTINE  LONERGAN,   A   REPRESENTATIVE   IN    CONGRESS   FROSf 
THE   STATE  OF   CONNECTICUT. 

Gentlemen,  the  principle  involved  in  the  measure  to  grant  to  honorably 
discharged  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  homestead  rights,  so  that  they  may 


666  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

gain  a  fresh  start  in  life  and  be  reasonably  assured  that  the  Government  is 
behind  them  in  their  endeavors,  should  have  the  approval  of  everyone. 

Having  the  honor  to  represent  in  part  the  State  of  Connecticut  in  Congress, 
I  think  it  proper  at  this  time  to  direct  attention  to  the  fact  that  there  are  acres 
and  acres  of  land  right  in  New  England  which  can  be  profitably  used  by  the 
Interior  Department  in  the  projects  that  will  undoubtedly  take  form  on  the 
passage  of  soldiers'  land  legislation. 

In  Connecticut,  for  instance,  plenty  of  land  is  available  for  sheep  raising, 
which  now  is  scarcely  used  for  pasture  land  at  all.  The  energy  of  our  dis- 
charged service  men  plus  the  energy  of  a  few  tons  of  dynamite  will  in  a  short 
time  obliterate  rocks  and  stumps. 

I  am  informed  that  nearly  1,900  former  service  men  from  New  England 
alone  have  interested  themselves  in  opportunities  for  reclaiming  land,  and 
their  names  are  on  record  with  the  Interior  Department.  Of  this  number  more 
than  300  live  in  Connecticut. 

It  seems  to  me  no  State  should  be  overlooked,  and  New  England  and  par- 
ticularly Connecticut  has  special  advantages  that  attract  the  former  service 
man. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  want  to  ask  that  the  statement  of  Secretary  Lane, 
which  appeared  in  the  Sunday  issues  of  the  press  of  this  city,  go 
in  here  also. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  If  that  is  to  be  done,  I  would  like  to  get  half  a 
dozen  volumes  of  testimony  against  the  measure  and  move  that  they 
go  in  the  record  also.  I  have  some  letters  and  a  few  telegrams,  and 
I  have  read  a  good  many  articles.  So  if  the  record  is  to  be  en- 
larged indefinitely,  I  shall  insist  upon  my  right. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  have  not  put  anything  in  this  record  yet,  but  we 
did  ask  Secretary  Lane  at  one  time  to  come  before  us,  and  he  was 
busy  and  thought  he  had  possibly  gone  over  the  matter  pretty  fully. 
And  he  did  publish  a  verv  good  statement,  about  a  column  or  so,  in 
the  papers  of  the  Sunday  issue. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  the  Star? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes;  and  I  feel  that  that  ought  to  go  in  the  record 
as  a  final  statement  of  the  author  of  this  whole  proposition. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  think  it  ought  to  go  in  myself. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  will  ask  to  have  that  go  in. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Let  me  say  another  thing;  that  the  State  of  Col- 
orado, through  the  Governor  and  the  public  officials  out  there,  have 
decided  that  they  are  going  to  call  an  extra  session  of  the  legislature 
to  ratify  the  suffrage  amendment,  and  they  are  putting  it  off  until 
after  this  legislation  is  enacted  for  the  purpose  of  passing  such 
legislation  and  having  the  Governor  include  it  in  his  call  of  the 
extra  session,  so  that  the  legislature  may  enact  such  legislation  for 
our  State  as  will  permit  the  State  to  take  advantage  of  this  measure 
and  do  whatever  is  necessary  for  Colorado  to  do  its  share.  But  be- 
cause of  the  fact  that  they  dp  not  know  what  is  going  to  be,  they 
are  putting  off  that  extra  session  of  the  legislature  for  that  purpose. 
And  I  may  say  that  every  man.  woman  and  child  in  Colorado  is  in 
favor  of  this  measure,  and  look  at  it  in  the  way  of  a  broad-gauge 
public  measure  as  well  as  to  take  care  of  the  soldier,  and  they  expect 
us  to  do  something  here  and  expect  Colorado  to  do  something  to  help 
the  soldiers,  as  she  certainly  will. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  In  connection  with  the  statement  made  by  Mr.  Tay- 
lor regarding  Secretary  Lane's  statement,  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
chairman  what  became  of  the  proposal  made  by  this  committee  for 
the  appearance  before  this  committee  of  the  Secretary  of  Agricul- 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  667 

ture  and  the  Secretary  of  Labor?  It  was  understood  before  this 
committee  at  one  time  that  both  of  these  gentlemen  would  appear. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  were  both  invited  by  letter  to  appear. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  We  heard  they  would  appear. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  got  a  letter  from  the  Department  of  Agricul- 
ture saying  the  Secretary  was  out  of  the  city  and  would  not  return 
for  three  weeks.  I  have  had  no  reply  from  the  Department  of 
Labor. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Mr.  Chairman,  it  has  been  suggested  here  once  or 
twice  that  the  opponents  of  the  bill  had  not  received  as  full  hearing 
as  the  proponents.  Now  I  would  like  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
committee  to  the  fact  that  we  have  given  opportunity  to  more  Con- 
gressmen to  oppose  it.  There  was  Congressman  White,  who  had  a 
full  hearing;  there  was  Congressman  Boies,  of  Iowa,  who  had  two 
full  hours  in  opposition  to  the  bill ;  there  was  a  Congressman  from 
Texas.  And  I  do  not  believe  that  anyone  will  say  we  have  not  given 
fuller  opportunity  to  the  opponents  of  the  bill  and  been  more  patient 
and  given  more  opportunity  than  we  have  to  the  proponents.  I  do 
not  see  how  any  suggestion  in  the  world  could  be  made  here  that  we 
have  not  given  all  possible  opportunity  to  those  who  desired  to  ap- 
pear against  it.  There  was  the  Oregon  man  and  this  lady  came,  and 
everyone  who  had  a  criticism  of  this  bill  has  been  heard,  and  some 
very  powerful  people  have  come  in  to  exploit  it — Mr.  Benham,  your 
own  representative  from  your  own  State  of  Indiana.  We  have 
heard  all  kinds  of  peop.le  here,  and  how  it  can  be  imputed  that  we 
have  shut  them  off  and  at  the  same  time  shown  favoritism  to  the 
proponents  of  the  bill  I  can  not  imagine. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Why  not  make  the  matter  specific:  Are  there  any 
people,  or  is  there  any  man  or  woman  who  has  made  application  to 
be  heard  on  the  matter  pending  here  who  desired  to  be  heard  and 
have  not  been  heard  ? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  I  am  here.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  out  of  order 
or  not,  but  I  desire  to  be  heard,  and  I  know  several  soldiers  who 
would  like  to  be  heard — a  captain,  two  lieutenants  and  several  others. 
If  you  would  like  to  have  their  names  I  will  furnish  them. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  will  state  that  Mr.  Mays  spoke  to  me  about 
Gov.  Spry,  and  someone  else  from  Utah  who  desired  to  speak  in 
favor  of  the  bill.  I  told  him  the  committee  had  made  an  order 
closing  the  hearing  Saturday,  with  the  exception  of  an  invitation 
to  Mr.  Hallam  to  be  here.  And  I  told  Mr.  Mays  that  under  the 
order  his  people  could  not  be  heard,  although  they  were  in  favor  of 
the  bill.  We  have  got  to  close  Jhese  hearings  some  time. 

Mr.  MAYS.  In  that  connection  I  will  say  the  Governor  has  just 
arrived,  and  he  did  not  know  these  hearings  were  to  be  closed  until 
he  got  here. 

Mr.  EAKER.  Governor  Spry  is  here  and  from  a  long  distance,  and 
I  would  like  to  hear  him  myself. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  These  hearings  have  got  to  be  closed  up  sometime. 
We  have  to  take  up  the  oil  matter  after  this,  and  that  may  take  long 
consideration. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Let  me  make  a  suggestion ;  let  us  give  two  more  days 
and  let  us  tell  these  men  who  are  opposed  to  this  bill  to  go  out  and 
beat  the  brush  and  bring  in  everything  under  heaven  they  can  find, 
and  give  them  one  day  to  present  it. 


668  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  They  have  had  two  to  one  already. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  know;  they  have  had  three  weeks.  And  then  tell 
the  proponents  the  same  thing,  if  they  want  to  present  anything. 
And  then  limit  them  to  three  hours  apiece  and  then  quit,  and  if  any- 
one wants  to  make  any  insinuations  they  are  cut  off  after  that  time, 
no  matter  whether  for  or  against  the  bill. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Would  that  motion  also  be  supposed  to  allow  the 
opponents  of  this  bill  to  attempt  in  a  legitimate  way,  to  show  what 
the  hearings  in  favor  of  the  bill  have  cost  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment and  what  the  propaganda  in  favor  of  the  bill  has  cost  the 
United  States? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  can  show  any  blame  thing  you  please  in  three 
hours. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  My  suggestion  would  be  that  we  limit  any  further 
hearings  we  have  to  the  opponents  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  I  fully  appreciate  your  overindulgence  but  I  main- 
tain that  they  have  had  two  to  one  already. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  I  agree  with  you. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  And  they  have  put  in  every  kind  of  argument ;  and  if 
you  cast  up  that  record  and  estimate  the  number  of  pages,  and  the 
cost,  you  will  find  it  is  two  or  three  to  one  in  favor  of  the  opponents. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  I  agree  with  you. 

Mr.  RAKER.  We  have  had  before  us  a  great  piece  of  constructive 
legislation  that  will  do  more  for  this  country  than  anything  that  has 
occurred  for  the  past  50  years.  And  suppose  it  does  cost  something 
to  get  it  ready  and  suppose  it  takes  a  little  time  to  hear  it,  why 
shouldn't  we  give  the  opponents  and  proponents  a  little  time  to  be 
heard,  and  we  will  give  legislation  that  the  people  of  this  country 
want  and  which  will  do  good.  And  there  is  no  reason  to  be  technical 
in  regard  to  closing  the  hearings.  Let  us  bring  this  Mr.  Harris  here, 
and  let  us  have  another  day's  hearing. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  will  state  to  the  committee  that  the  clerk  has 
attempted  to  locate  Mr.  Harris  but  has  failed  to  do  so;  so  we  can- 
not get  him  to-day. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  will  renew  my  motion,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  we  give 
the  opponents  three  hours  more  time  to  present  anything  under 
heaven  they  want  to,  and  after  that  by  the  proponents,  those  in 
favor  of  it  (they  have  a  right  to  close  the  hearing  anyhow),  that  they 
be  given  three  hours  to  close  if  they  want  it.  I  do  not  think  they 
will  want  any  time;  at  the  same  time  I  do  not  want  to  shut  this 
thing  off  with  a  row  and  with  people  sitting  here  saying  they  want  to 
be  heard.  I  do  not  know  what  they,  want  to  say,  and  we  can  keep 
these  hearings  up  for  six  months  longer,  and  there  will  still  be  a  lot 
of  cranks  and  people  from  all  over  the  TJnited  States  who  want  to  be 
heard. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Let  me  say  one  word:  Like  the  man  in  the  parable, 
I  am  of  age  and  I  can  speak  for  myself,  and  I  am  satisfied.  I  have 
not  asked  any  man  to  come  here,  except  a  member  of  my  delegation. 
And  you  know  those  fellows  said  "  Hayes,  we  won't  come ;  we  are 
satisfied  to  go  ahead;  we  will  agree  to  anything  you  report."  That 
was  nice  and  fine;  I  was  a  new  man.  Now,  I  am  satisfied.  Mr. 
Elston  looks  over  at  me  with  a  scowl  on  his  face  and  inspires  my  soul 
with  terror  as  I  see  his  countenance  in  my  sleep. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  669 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Oh,  no,  Mr.  White,  that  is  my  ordinary  look  of  pro- 
fundity. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Then  it  is  God's  fault  and  not  yours,  I  am  satisfied. 
This  matter  is  going  along  nice;  I  do  not  care  who  comes  here,  I  will 
get  just  as  much  out  of  this  as  anybody.  I  think  we  have  the  best 
case  and  you  have  the  best  witnesses,  and  you  havo  the  advantage  of 
us  in  that  respect. 

Mr.  ALSTON.  1  think  you  have  done  very  nicely. 

Mr.  KAKER.  I  do  not  think  this  is  a  matter  that  ought  to  depend 
on  the  number  of  witnesses  or  the  number  of  hours  but  ought  to 
depend  on  its  merits  and  if  it  takes  a  little  time,  let  us  take  it  and 
then  adjudicate  the  case  on  its  merits  and  not  on  the  number  of  wit- 
nesses or  on  how  much  time  it  took  or  how  much  it  cost. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  motion  of  Mr.  Taylor  is  that  the  opponents 
have  three  hours  and  then  the  proponents  three  hours. 

Mr.  MAYS.  I  understood  that  Mr.  Taylor's  motion  contemplated 
the  opponents  of  the  bill  should  be  heard  for  three  hours  and  then 
those  in  favor  of  the  bill  should  be  heard  for  three  hours. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes;  that  was  the  motion. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Following  out  that  motion,  and  knowing  the  governor 
is  in  favor  of  the  bill,  I  suggest  that  we  carry  that  idea  through, 
and  those  opposed  to  the  bill  be  heard  first. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  opponents  of  the  bill  here  who  de- 
sire to  be  heard? 

The  committee  will  be  glad  to  hear  you,  Mrs.  Oxley.  Please  state 
your  name  and  address  and  whom  you  represent. 

STATEMENT  OF  MRS.  W.  H.  OXLEY,  1819  G  STREET  NW.,  WASH- 
INGTON, D.  C. 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  My  name  is  Mrs.  W.  H.  Oxley,  1819  G  Street,  I  rep- 
resent myself  and  some  friends  of  mine  and  my  relatives  and  family 
who  became  indignant  about  this  Lehmann  statement.  I  brought  the 
piece  with  me,  and  Mr.  Ferris  and  Mr.  Nichols  brought  it  up — it 
seems  as  if  they  have  read  my  thoughts  and  read  this  article  in  my 
hand.  Reading  this  in  Saturday's  Post,  my  family  and  myself  and 
a  lieutenant  who  has  been  discharged,  and  several  others,  were  in- 
terested in  helping  the  soldiers — not  helping  any  plan — because  when 
I  first  read  Secretary  Lane's  plan  I  thought  it  was  a  good  one,  but 
since  reading  Mr.  Morgan's  plan  and  what  Canada  is  doing  for  her 
soldiers,  which  I  think  everybody  knows — I  didn't  know  it  until 
yesterday,  when  a  Canadian  told  me  what  they  were  doing — it  seems 
that  the  Morgan  plan  would  be  the  wisest. 

Canada  is  giving  her  soldiers  $100  a  month  for  6  to  12  months, 
depending  on  length  of  service  in  France  and  rank;  a  160-acre 
section  in  any  part  of  Canada  the  soldier  selects,  and  $8,000  for 
improvements  is  loaned  to  them  without  interest. 

Now,  that  is  being  done,  and  some  of  our  soldiers  are  very  much 
interested  in  getting  to  Canada  if  they  can,  because  their  Govern- 
ment is  not  doing  it. 

I  can  give  the  names  of  several  soldiers  who  think  that  this  loan 
bill  is  by  far  the  best  plan  for  them,  and  when  we  read  this  article  of 
Mr.  Lehmann's— Private  Lehmann,  Company  D,  326th  Infantry,  we 


670  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

were  quite  indignant,  because  it  says  he  entered  the  committee  room 
seeking  information  regarding  the  proposal,  and  then  he  was  called 
on  to  testify  as  to  what  this  bill  was.  Why  anybody  who  had  just 
come  in  for  information  could  be  brought  up  as  a  witness — it  killed 
the  Lane  bill  in  my  mind  almost  immediately.  The  first  thing  T 
said  was :  "  There  is  a  Democrat  working  for  Mr.  Lane."  Now,  I 
dodn't  know  Mr.  Ferris;  I  tried  to  see  him  yesterday,  and  when  he 
went  out  I  spoke  to  Mr.  Ferris  as  he  went  out,  and  I  told  him  what 
I  had  said,  which  was  not  very  complimentary.  He  said:  "I  am 
working  for  the  Lane  bill."  I  said :  "  That  is  what  I  said  yesterday." 
So  you  see  it  really  works  against  the  Lane  bill. 

Now,  I  have  the  names  of  all  the  soldiers  that  I  have  interviewed. 
I  interviewed  a-  stranger  on  the  train  this  morning,  and  he  said  he 
was  an  officer,  just  from  France,  and  he  was  in  favor  of  some  plan 
to  help  the  soldiers,  and  if  you  are  working  to  help  the  soldiers 
that  the  bill  which  proposes  to  bestow  on  him  some  money — which- 
ever bill  it  was — is  the  one  to  be  of  service. 

Now,  I  have  two  or  three  soldiers  that  I  have  asked  if  they  will 
come  up  here,  one  a  lieutenant  in  the  Census  Building;  one  a  lieu- 
tenant in  the  Aviation  Corps — Now  a  captain  and  in  the  real  estate 
business — and  I  think  they  would  be  very  glad  to  come  up  and  tell 
what  they  think  is  for  the  benefit  of  the  soldiers  and  not  for  either 
bill,  if  you  care  to  have  the  witnesses  brought  up. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Have  you  their  names  and  addresses? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  I  could  get  them  for  you  . 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  might  tell  them  we  would  be  glad  to  hear 
them. 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  You  will  be  glad  to  hear  them  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  Is  there  any  special  time  you  have  put  down  for 
them  to  be  here  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  we  will  probably  have  a  meeting  to-morrow 
at  10  o'clock. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  want  to  ask  this  lady  a  question,  Mr.  Chairman. 
Did  you  ever  talk  with  Mr.  Morgan,  the  author  of  the  Morgan  bill? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  I  went  to  Mr.  Morgan  yesterday.  I  tried  to  see  Mr. 
Ferris  and  I  tried  to  see  Mr.  Snell,  and  I  couldn't  see  any  of  them, 
except  Mr.  Morgan  just  a  moment. 

Mr.  WHITE.  You  went  to  Mr.  Morgan  of  your  own  motion? 

Mr.  OXLEY.  Yes. 

Mr.  WHITE.  On  your  own  impulse  ? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  Yes. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Now,  I  want  to  bring  out,  Mr.  Chairman,  because  I 
hate  to  have  people  come  up  here  and  say  there  is  some  interest  back 
of  this,  and  I  want  this  witness  to  understand  that  this  committee 
wants  to  be  absolutely  impartial  and  fair,  and  hear  everybody. 

IVJrs.  OXLEY.  That  is  what  I  want;  to  be  perfectly  fair.  I  went  to 
Mr.  Morgan  yesterday  and  told  him  I  wanted  all  the  literature  he 
had,  and  I  am  going  to  Mr.  Lane  and  ask  him  for  all  the  literature 
he  has,  because  I  asked  the  Rector  of  St.  Paul's  if  he  would  throw 
his  influence  to  the  bill  that  was  best  for  the  soldiers,  and  he  said  he 
didn't  know  anything  about  it,  but  if  I  would  bring  him  the  liter- 
ature on  both  bills  he  would  study  up  the  question  and  do  what  he 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  671 

could.  So  I  came  down  yesterday  morning  to  see  Mr.  Morgan,  and 
I  got  his  literature,  and  I  am  going  to  Mr.  Lane  today  and  get  his 
literature  and  turn  it  over  to  the  Rector  of  St.  John's  and  St.  Paul's, 
and  Epiphany,  and  ask  them  to  throw  their  influence  to  the  bill  that 
is  best  for  the  soldiers. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  want  the  very  best  legislation  we  can  secure 
for  the  soldiers? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  Yes,  sir ;  like  Canada  is  doing. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  read  all  the  bills? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  Yes ;  I  have  read  all  the  bills. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  don't  know  whether  that  statement  in  the 
newspaper  was  true  or  not,  do  you? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  Yes;  Mr.  Ferris  just  said  so. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Will  you  read  the  statement : 

Mrs.  OXLEY  (reading)  : 

Pvt.  Eiriile  Lehmann,  Company  D,  Three  hundred  and  twenty-sixth  Infantry, 
Avas  a  witness.  He  entered  the  committee  room  seeking  information  regarding 
the  proposal,  and  Representative  Scott  Ferris,  Democrat,  of  Oklahoma,  insisted 
that  he  take  the  stand.  Mr.  Lehmann  was  reticent  and  said,  "  Well,  it  looks 
as  though  it  was  a  mighty  good  thing."  That  was  the  most  he  would  say. 

We  were  indignant  about  it,  because  he  didn't  know  anything  about 
what  he  was  talking  about,  and  why  a  committee  of  men  like  these 
should  ask  an  ignorant  soldier  to  come  and  be  a  witness  to 

Mr.  MAYS  (interposing).  He  knew  how  he  felt  about  it,  didn't  he? 

Mr.  VAILE.  Did  you  hear  the  testimony  ? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  I  heard  what  Mr.  Lehmann  said. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Now,  for  instance,  if  we  took  only  those  who  knew 
most  about  it,  how  much  do  you  know  about  it  ? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  I  have  studied  it  for  months.  I  wrote  the  first  letter 
that  was  written  about  soldier  settlement  to  Theodore  Roosevelt 
when  the  first  army  had  entered  France,  because  my  husband  and 
myself  were  going  to  Florida  on  a  farm — it  seems  to  me  I  heard 
the  name  "  Hallam  "  this  morning — I  wrote  to  the  Hallam  Land  Co. 
and  I  told  them — I  spoke  to  the  Hallam  Land  Co.  and  I  told  them 
I  had  written  to  Mr.  Roosevelt  suggesting  that  the  Red  Cross  or 
some  other  Christian  association  should  form  a  fund  where  we  could 
place  our  helpless  soldiers  on  farms,  and  I  suggested  Florida — I 
am  going  there  and  will  be  perfectly  willing,  as  a  good  agricultural 
worker  interested  in  this  work,  to  show  my  ability  by  what  I  can 
raise  and  not  just  what  I  know.  And  after  the  tiallam  Land  Co. 
didn't  carry  out  some  of  the  promises  they  made  I  dropped  all  con- 
nection with  them,  but  in  a  month  or  two  afterwards  Mr.  Lane's 
idea  of  putting  the  soldiers  on  the  farms  came  out,  and  after  I  read 
it  I  said,  "  Well,  I'm  glad  somebody  is  taking  that  up,"  and  I  wrote 
to  Mr.  Theodore  Roosevelt  about  it,  and  Mr.  Roosevelt  wrote  back 
a  very  nice  letter  saying  the  idea,  he  thought,  was  excellent,  but  he 
was  not  in  either  health  or  business  condition  to  take  up  any  extra 
work. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mrs.  Oxley.  vou  haven't  talked  to  Mr.  Mondell, 
the  author  of  this  bill,  have  \ou  ^  f 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  haven't  read  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Lehmann, 
have  you? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  Only  what  was  in  the  paper. 
133319—19 43 


672  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  haven't  read  his  testimony? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  you  didn't  hear  it? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  the  thing  you  are  indignant  about  is  the 
statement  in  the  paper  and  not  his  testimony  ? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  An  ignorant  soldier  was  taken  by  the  committee  to 
represent 

Mr.  VAILE  (interposing).  How  do  you  know  he  was  an  ignorant 
soldier? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  He  was  ignorant  of  the  subject;  he  may  have  been  a 
learned  scholar,  but  he  was  ignorant  of  the  subject. 

Mr.  VAILE.  You  say  you  haven't  read  his  testimony? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  I  say  from  the  paper  I  was  indignant.  Of  course, 
if  I  read  his  testimony  I  might  not  be. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Of  course,  that  is  only  the  story  of  it  by  the  newspaper 
reporter  in  the  paper. 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  That  is  all  I  have. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Don't  you  think  it  is  a  little  unfair  to  characterize  him 
as  an  ignorant  soldier  when  that  is  all  the  basis  you  have  to  go  on? 

Mr.  WHITE.  The  lady  qualified  her  statement,  Mr.  Vaile. 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  The  paper  said  he  had  just  come  in  here  and  didn't 
know  anything  about  the  Lane  proposition;  that  he  had  just  come 
in  here  and  hadn't  had  time  to  study  it.  I  have  studied  it  for 
months  and  I  don't  know  all  about  it  yet. 

Mr.  VAILE.  If  you  had  read  Mr.  Lehmann's  testimony  you  would 
realize  that  he  had  studied  not  only  this  bill,  but  that  he  had  studied 
the  proposition  very  sensibly  and  had  discussed  it  with  a  great  many 
soldiers. 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  I  didn't  know  that,  of  course. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Furthermore,  that  he  had  visited  all  kinds  of  lands  in 
different  parts  of  the  United  States. 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  I  am  very  glad  to  hear  it.  It  made  me  indignant 
that  you  would  take  the  testimony  of  some  one  who  had  not  studied 
the  subject. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  would  like  to  ask  one  question.  Mr.  Chairman.  You 
have  read  the  Lane  proposal  in  the  Mondell  bill,  haven't  you  ? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  I  have  read  the  Mondell  bill. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  have  you  read  the  statement  of  Secretary  Lane 
on  the  bill? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  Well,  I  have  read  a  great  many  statements  of  the 
Secretary. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Have  you  read  his  statement  given  before  this  com- 
mittee? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  Yes;  the  one  that  was  in  the  paper. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  let  me  ask  you  this  question:  Are  you  in  fa- 
vor  

The  CHAIRMAN  (interposing).  Just  a  moment.  Judge — she  said  the 
statement  in  the  paper. 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  That  might  not  be  true,  of  course. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  mean  the  hearings.  Have  you  read  the  hearings  be- 
fore the  committee,  the  testimony  given  by  Secretary  Lane? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  No;  I  have  not. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  673 

Mr.  RAKER.  Having  read  the  Mondell  bill,  having  written  to  ex- 
President  and  Col.  Roosevelt,  having  gone  into  the  matter  thor- 
oughly in  regard  to  the  protection  of  the  returning  soldiers,  are  you 
in  favor  of  the  Mondell-Lane  proposition  to  care  for  our  returning 
soldiers? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  No;  I  am  not  now.  I  used  to  be.  I  am  not  now  be- 
cause Lieut.  Fair,  of  the  Census  Bureau,  said  and  explained  to  me 
very  carefully  that  it  places  the  soldier  in  the  position  of  a  day 
laborer.  I  hadn't  thought  of  that  before. 

Another  lieutenant  of  the  Aviation  Corps — his  name  has  slipped 
my  mind  for  a  moment — thinks  it  is  an  outrage  to  the  soldiers,  and  I 
would  like  for  them  to  come  up  and  testify. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Is  the  soldier  compelled  to  assume  the  position  of  a 
day  laborer? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  No;  but  they  are  very  anxious — this  Lieut.  Fair 
is  a  soldier  from  Texas — he  has  a  Representative  here — and  he  is 
very  anxious  to  get  a  farm.  He  hasn't  the  money  to  do  it;  he  is  get- 
ting a  small  salary  at  the  Census  Bureau,  and  he  was  brought  up  a 
farmer's  boy,  and  he  is  a  farmer. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Then,  if  they  are  very  anxious  to  undertake  this 
labor,  it  certainly  is  not  a  hardship  on  them  to  do  what  they  are 
anxious  to  do,  is  it? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  But  he  wants  to  go  right  in  to  planting  corn  and  cot- 
ton in  Texas  and  buy  himself  a  farm  for  $4,000. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  He  wants  the  Government  to  give  him  160  acres  and 
lend  him  $8,000  without  interest? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  No ;  he  is  willing  to  accept  $4,000  and  buy  the  farm 
for  $4,000. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  And  he  wants  to  have  it  all  improved  and  a  garden 
patch  planted  on  it? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  Whatever  he  can  do. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  in  favor  of  the  Canadian  plan,  Mrs. 
Oxley  ? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  Well;  I  really  haven't  studied  the  Canadian  plan. 
This  was  just  the  statement  given  to  me  about  what  they  are  doing. 

Mr.  MAYS.  You  say  they  are  loaning  $8,000  without  interest  to 
each  individual? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  Yes. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Do  you  think  that  is  true? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  They  say  so. 

Mr.  MAYS.  That  they  are  loaning  $8,000  to  each  individual  without 
interest? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Who  says  so? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  The  young  Canadian  that  gave  this  statement.  I  can 
find  out  the  truth  about  it  if  you  like.  I  can  send  a  telegram  right 
direct  to  Canada,  if  you  like. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  have  a  copy  of  the  law  here,  Mrs.  Oxley,  and  so 
far  as  I  can  learn  there  is  no  country  that  is  offering  to  loan  more 
than  $2,500  to  a  soldier.  That  is  the  Canadian  law,  and  at  least  one 
Province  in  Australia,  and  that  was  what  I  wanted  to  call  atten- 
tion to. 


674  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  This  may  be  some  land  scheme,  like  Secretary  Lane's. 
I  don't  know  what  it  is.  That  was  just  given  to  me  as  a  statement 
from  a  Canadian. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  think  we  ought  to  loan  them  $8,000? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  Not  until  they  got  established  on  the  farm. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  you  would  then? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  Yes. 

Mr.  WHITE.  You  mean  that  that  $8,000,  or  whatever  sum  is  fixed, 
•would  be  the  purchase  price  of  the  farm,  don't  you?  You  don't 
mean  that  he  would  have  that  amount  to  start  into  business  with  ? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  For  improvements;  buying  the  farm  and  improv- 
ing it. 

Mr.  MAYS.  That  wasn't  what  she  said. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Well,  I  thought  that  was  what  she  meant.  I  think 
my  question  was  fair. 

"Mrs.  OXLEY.  Yes :  I  think  so. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  mean,  Mrs.  Oxley,  to  lend  them  $8,000  to 
enable  them  to  secure  a  farm  and  the  improvements? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  Yes;  I  think  that  would  make  the  best  citizens  of 
our  working  boys  of  anything  in  the  world. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  they  to  secure  that  farm  wherever  they  can 
find  it? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  Wherever  they  please,  without  any  restrictions, 
whether  it  is  improved  land  or  unimproved.  If  they  want  to  get 
6,000  acres  out  here  from  the  Government,  unimproved,  let  them  go 
and  improve  it  if  they  want  to. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  would  like  to  ask  the  lady  one  more  question.  I 
gather  from  all  your  testimony  that  you  are  in  favor  of  the  best  bill 
that  can  be  framed  that  will  do  the  most  for  the  soldiers  that  need  it 
and  are  in  a  position  to  avail  themselves  of  it. 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  best  bill  for  the  greatest  number 
of  our  soldiers,  W7hich  will  help  them  the  quickest  and  the  best. 

Mr.  WHITE.  And  that  will  help  those  that  stand  in  need  of  it. 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  Yes. 

Mr.  VAILE.  But  you  would  be  opposed  to  any  bill  for  the  benefit 
of  soldiers  if  it  also  involved  the  reclamation  of  arid  lands  or  swamp 
lands,  as  I  understand  it? 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  No;  if  they  wanted  to  go  and  do  it;  but  I  think  a 
great  many  don't  want  to  do  it.  If  they  want  to  go  ahead  and  drain 
swamp  lands,  I  say  go  ahead  and  do  it.  I  think  it  is  a  very  dan- 
gerous thing  to  do.  because  I  have  some  swamp  lands  in  Florida 
myself;  but  I  believe  with  President  Wilson  in  the  principle  of  self- 
determination,  and  go  ahead  and  do  the  best  vou  can  with  what  you 
have  got.  If  they  want  to  go  into  the  uncultivated  swampy  land  of 
Florida,  let  them  buy  up  the  whole  thing.  For  $8,000  they  could 
buy  quite  a  good  deal  before  this  land  scheme  came  up  Everything 
has  been  raised  way  up  now. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  anyone  else  here  who  desires  to  be  heard  ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Let  us  hear  Gov.  Spry  now. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  opponents  of  the  bill  were  to  have  three 
hours  commencing  to-morrow,  and  then  the  proponents  of  the  bill 
were  to  have  three  hours  at  the  close.  If  there  are  no  other  wit- 
nesses here  we  might  stand  adjourned  until  to-morrow  morning  -'it 
10  o'clock. 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  675 

Mr.  MAYS.  Where  is  Mr.  Harris? 

The.  CHAIRMAN.  We  are  trying  to  locate  him.  We  will  try  to  get 
him  here  to-morrow. 

Mr.  MAYS.  I  would  be  glad  to  hear  Mr.  Nichols's  statement  as  to 
the  evidence  he  has — as  to  calling  Mr.  Harris. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  have  made  my  statement. 

Mr.  MAYS.  That  is  all  you  have? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  order  made  was  that  commencing  to-morrow 
the  opponents  of  the  bill  shall  have  three  hours  and  then  the  pro- 
ponents shall  have  three  hours. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  was  my  motion  put,  or  was  it 
carried  ?  Is  it  the  understanding  of  this  committee  that  Mr.  Harris 
shall  be  requested  to  come  before  the  committee? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  understanding  is  that  Mr.  Harris  will  be 
requested  to  come  before  the  committee  to-morrow  morning. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  here  a  short  resolution  from 
the  Spanish  War  Veterans  that  I  would  like  to  have  incorporated 
in  the  record.  I  don't  care  to  take  up  any  time  reading  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Without  objection,  that  will  be  done. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Do  they  want  this  bill  to  include  them  ? 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Yes. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Is  that  the  national  organization? 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  The  national  organization.  They  are  asking  that 
it  apply  to  the  Spanish  War  veterans. 

Mr.  BEN  ii AM.  We  would  like  to  know  who  it  is  that  is  speaking 
for  the  Spanish -American  War  veterans. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  suppose  it  is  a  resolution  requesting  that  they 
be  given  the  benefits  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  SUMMERS  (reading)  : 

Wo  recommend  that  the  foregoing  resolution  be  passed,  same  being  unani- 
mously passed  by  the  Sixteenth  Annual  Encampment  of  United  Spanish  War 
Veterans,  at  Bellingham,  Wash.,  June  13,  1919. 

It  is  the  State  organization  of  the  United  Spanish  War  Veterans. 

Mr.  BEN  HAM.  That  is  what  I  wanted  to  bring  out,  where  they  are 
located.  Doesn't  that  represent  the  national  sentiment  of  that  or- 
ganization? That  is  what  I  am  trying  to  get  at. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  think  Mr.  Benham  misunderstands.  This  is  in 
favor  of  including  the  Spanish  War  veterans  in  the  provisions  of 
this  bill. 

Mr.  BKNIIAM.  I  understand  that. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  They  declare  they  are  in  favor  of  some  such  legis- 
lation, as  far  as  that  is  concerned,  and  they  want  to  be  included  in 
the  provisions  of  the  bill. 

(The  paper  referred  to  follows:) 

Whereas  the  State  of  Washington  enacted  into  law  at  its  last  session  of  the 
legislature  acts  in  compliance  with  the  request  of  the  Secretary  of  the  In- 
terior empowering  this  State  to  avail  itself  by  way  of  acquiring  land  and  co- 
operating with  the  Federal  Government  on  the  reclamation  of  same:  Now, 
therefore,  be  it 

AY.vo/rc'd,  That  the  Department  of  Washington  and  Alaska  United  Spanish 
War  Veterans  at  its  sixteenth  annual  encampment  is  in  thorough  accord  with 
the  policy  outlined  by  Secretary  Lane,  and  earnestly  requests  our  Senators  and 
Representatives  in  Congress  to  aid  in  every  way  with  the  early  passage  of  an 


676  HOMES  FOE   SOLDIERS. 

act  in  furtherance  of  the  said  plan,  thereby  enabling  returned  discharged  sol- 
diers to  secure  a  home  in  this  State  if  they  so  desire ;  and  be  it 

Further  resolved,  That  we  recommend  that  the  proposed  bill  be  amended  so 
as  to  extend  the  benefits  thereof  to  members  of  the  United  Spanish  War  Veter- 
ans organizations  and  to  veterans  of  the  Civil  War. 

We  recommend  that  the  foregoing  resolution  be  passed,  same  being  unani- 
mously passed  by  the  sixteenth  annual  encampment  of  United  Spanish  War 
Veterans,  at  Bellingham,  Wash,  June  13,  1919. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  a  statement  here  from  the 
Orland  Unit  Water  Users'  Association  on  the  Government  project 
in  California  that  pertains  to  this  bill.  Now,  if  the  members  of  the 
committee  want  me  to  read  it,  I  will,  or  I  will  have  it  inserted  in  the 
record. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Without  objection,  it  may  be  inserted  in  the 
record. 

(The  paper  referred  to  follows:) 

ORLAND  UNIT  WATER  USERS'  ASSOCIATION, 

Orland,  Calif,  June  7,  1919. 
Hon.  HUGH  S.  HERSMAN, 

Representative,  Washington,  D.  C. 

MY  DEAR  SIR  :  We,  as  directors  of  the  Orland  Unit  Water  Users'  Association 
(a  Government  project),  wish  to  express  ourselves  as  being  in  hearty  accord 
with  the  bill  H.  R.  487,  recently  introduced  by  Representative  Mondell,  and 
further  known  as  the  national  soldiers'  settlement  act. 

After  some  12  years  of  actual  experience  with  irrigation  at  Orland,  Glenn 
County,  Calif.,  in  the  Sacramento  Valley,  we  fully  appreciate  and  realize  the 
value  of  water. 

Prior  to  irrigation  the  farmers  were  becoming  more  and  more  involved 
financially,  owing  to  the  light  crops  of  cereals  produced  on  our  practically  de- 
pleted soils,  but  since  water  was  available  our  farmers  are  quite  prosperous. 

At  the  beginning,  some  12  years  ago,  we  had  Hi)  landowners  under  our  project, 
to-day  we  have  750. 

We  have  always  met  our  financial  obligations  with  the  Government  on  time. 
We  have  never  been  compelled  to  foreclose  on  a  farmer  on  account  of  delinquent 
water-tax  assessment.  Our  slate  is  clean. 

We  never  hear  of  any  real  estate  foreclosures  under  our  irrigated  areas,  but 
to  the  contrary  with  the  dry  farmer. 

The  pioneers  under  our  project  have  been  amazingly  surprised  as  to  the 
results  from  irrigation. 

What  has  been  accomplished  here  with  water  can  be  accomplished  corre- 
spondingly elsewhere. 

We  consider  bill  H.  R.  487  as  being  the  most  worthy  of  all  agricultural  bills 
ever  introduced  before  a  United  States  Congress.  If  there  was  ever  a  time  in 
the  history  of  our  country  when  rewards  of  merit  were  due  those  who  so  val- 
iantly defended  our  rights  it  is  now. 

Therefore  we  who  are  experienced  in  the  reclamation  of  arid  or  semiarid 
lands  heartily  indorse  the  movement  of  Hon.  Franklin  K.  Lane  and  regard  the 
bill  herein  referred  to  as  being  the  foundation  for  the  greatest  agricultural 
and  humane  undertaking  on  record,  and  sincerely  hope  and  trust  your  personal 
support  will  be  recorded  in  its  favor. 
Yours,  for  the  bill, 

BOARD  OF  DIRECTORS  OF  THE 
ORLAND  UNIT  WATER  USERS'  ASSOCIATION, 

[SEAL.!  i'.y   I'.  D.  RANK.  J'rcxidait. 

I'YouKNCK    M.   BALDWIN,    Fccrctarii. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  ask  how  soon  the, 
printed  hearings  will  be  available  for  the  members  of  the  committee, 
if  you  are  able  to  state. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  first  and  second  volumes  are  available  now. 

Mr.  WHITK.  I  would  like  it  if  we  could  postpone  any  executive 
consideration  of  this  bill  until  we  could  have  those  hearings  be- 
fore us. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  677 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  we  can  have  the  hearings  completed  and 
in  print  within  two  days  after  we  close  our  hearings. 

Mr.  WHITE.  That  is  all  right. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  there  is  no  further  business  we  will  stand  ad- 
journed until  to-morrow  morning  at  10  o'clock. 

(Whereupon,  at  11.30  o'clock  a.  m.,  the  committee  adjourned  until 
10  o'clock  a.  m.,  Wednesday,  June  25,  1919.) 


COMMITTEE  ON  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS, 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Wednesday,  June  25, 1919. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Nicholas  J.  Sinnott 
(chairman)  presiding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  come  to  order. 
Mr.  FERRIS.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  a  paper  here,  a  statement  of 
mine,  which  I  should  like  to  file;  or  shall  I  read  it? 
The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  you  had  beter  read  it. 
Mr.  FERRIS  (reading)  : 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  before  the  hearings  close  I 
desire,  first,  to  congratulate  Secretary  Franklin  K.  Lane  on  the  plan  he  has 
evolved  to  aid  the  returning  soldiers  in  their  desire  to  acquire  homes ;  second, 
I  desire  also  to  congratulate  him  upon  his  untiring  efforts  in  seeking  to  reclaim 
the  arid  and  waste  lands  in  the  Western  States  and  convert  them  into  habitable 
homes  for  the  soldiers.  All  of  this  is  so  commendable  on  his  part,  moved  by 
such  patriotic  motives,  that  even  words  of  commendation  with  reference  to  him 
are  surplusage  and  wholly  unnecessary. 

I  desire  ro  congratulate  the  chairman  of  this  committee,  Mr.  Sinnott,  for  his 
untiring  devotion  in  presenting  this  bill  and  absolute  and  undaunted  fairness 
he  has  accorded  every  witness,  whether  he  be  for  or  against  the  measure, 
together  with  his  uniform  courtesy  to  every  member  of  the  committee. 

I  desire  likewise  to  congratulate  Mr.  Mondell,  the  Republican  floor  leader, 
who  has  entered  into  the  spirit  of  this  legislation  with  the  undaunted  spirit  to 
bring  about,  first,  the  reclamation  of  the  arid  lands  of  the  country,  and,  second, 
to  make  possible  the  acquirement  of  homes  by  the  soldiers. 

I  desire  likewise  to  congratulate  each  and  every  member  of  this  committee, 
who  day  after  day  at  great  inconvenience  to  himself  and  at  neglect  of  other 
important  matters  has  sat  patiently  through  these  hearings  and  heard  every- 
one who  desired  to  be  heard.  No  one,  either  now  or  in  the  future,  can  but  feel 
Intensely  proud  of  the  great  interest  manifested  by  every  member  of  this 
committee. 

Other  matters  connected  with  my  duties  as  a  Representative  in  Congress  have 
made  it  impossible  to  be  present  all  the  time  during  the  hearings.  With  this  in 
mind  I  feel  I  can  not  let  these  hearings  close  without  stating,  first,  that  I  am 
heartily  and  earnestly  in  favor  of  the  Lane  plan,  in  so  far  as  it  goes,  and 
in  so  far  as  I  deem  it  in  all  things  feasible ;  but  at  the  same  time  I  must  express 
a  feeling  of  confidence  that  in  order  to  do  full  justice  to  all  the  soldiers,  and 
in  order  to  be  in  all  things  feasible  in  every  section  of  the  country,  and  in  order 
to  be  free  from  the  charuv  of  favoritism  and  sectionalism,  that  it  may  be  of  the 
highest  and  greatest  use  in  the  uivaioM  number,  it  deserves  amendment  in 
the  following  particulars : 

First.  A  provision  should  be  incorporated  in  the  bill  providing  that  the  money 
appropriated  either  by  this  bill  or  hereafter  in  succeeding  bills  should  be 
equitably  divided  among  the  States  according  to  the  soldiers  contributed  by  the 
States  to  the  war;  also  should  he  available  to  soldiers  of  prior  wars. 

Second.  In  States  where  the  soldiers'  colony  plan  is  not  feasible,  and  in  my 
Hulunient  there  will  be  many  such  States,  due  to  high-priced  land  and  closely- 
settled  communities,  an  alternative  proposition  should  be  offered,  whereby  the 
soldier  can  acquire  a  home,  either  urban  or  farm,  by  procuring  a  substantial 
loan  from  the  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board  or  some  similar  appropriate  agency 


678  HOMES  FOB  SOLDIERS. 

that  will  articulate  with  the  Interior  Department  in  order  that  the  soldier  may 
acquire  a  home  in  a  given  community  under  proper  safeguards  and  proper 
restraints  independent  of  the  soldiers'  colonization  plan. 

Third.  Opportunity  should  be  afforded  for  such  soldiers  who  do  not  desire  to 
avail  themselves  of  either  the  colony  plan  or  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board  plan 
by  direct  loans  from  the  Federal  Government  to  enable  them  to  be  applied  on 
the  purchase  of  a  suitable  and  appropriate  home  for  each  and  every  homeless 
soldier,  who  desires  to  avail  himself  of  a  home — subject,  of  course,  to  restraint 
on  alienation — subject  to  actual  occupation  of  the  home,  and  other  safeguards 
that  will  free  the  undertaking  from  fraud  or  bring  about  the  actual  acquire- 
ment of  homes  for  the  homeless  soldiers. 

Fourth.  Substantial  modification  of  the  homestead  law  should  be  made,  dis- 
pensing with  the  collection  of  fees  for  making  homestead  entries  on  the  un- 
occupied public  lands  of  the  country.  Provision  for  suitable  temporary  loans 
to  properly  improve  such  public-land  homesteads  made  upon  the  public  domain 
to  the  end  that  they  may  be  habitable  and  result  in  a  successful  undertaking  by 
the  soldier  homestead  occupant;  also  rigid  requirements  of  residence,  culti- 
vation, and  improvements  should  be  reduced  and  modified  to  encourage  the 
soldier  in  acquirement  of  a  home. 

Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  intensely  important  that  we  do  not  allow  this  great  con- 
structive measure  with  proper  amendments  to  fail.  We  must  not  fail.  We 
must  not  use  up  all  of  our  energy  on  details  and  forget  the  great  duty  we  owe 
to  the  soldiery  in  granting  them  this  relief,  which  if  it  does  not  miscarry  will 
furnisli  countless  homes  for  homeless  soldiers  in  all  of  the  States  of  the  Union. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Chairman,  you  have  reserved  three  hours  for  each 
side  in  this  hearing,  and  I  would  like  to  have  30  or  35  minutes  before 
we  close.  I  want  to  make  a  statement. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen,  Mr.  Harris  is  here  this  morning.  I 
will  say,  Mr.  Harris,  the  other  day  we  had  before  us  a  soldier,  who 
made  a  statement.  His  name  is  Lehmann,  and  it  was  intimated  that 
this  young  man — intimated  by  Mr.  Nichols,  or  stated — that  this 
young  man,  who  was  apparently  a  very  fine  young  farmer  soldier, 
was  unconsciousty  being  made  use  of  by  a  man  representing  private 
land  interests  in  the  West — men  who  have  private  interests  and 
private  gains  at  stake  in  the  enactment  of  this  bill — and  you  have 
been  invited  before  the  committee  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  state- 
ment of  your  relations  to  Mr.  Lehmann,  whether  or  not  you  insti- 
gated him  to  come  before  this  committee  to  make  a  statement,  or  if 
you  came  with  him,  why  you  came  'here  with  him,  or  why  you  sent 
him  here.  The  committee  will  ask  you  some  questions  about  that. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  JOHN  J.  HARRIS,  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  BIG 
HORN  IRRIGATION  &  POWER  CO.,  HARDIN,  MONT. 

Mr.  HARRIS.  I  am  frequently  down  at  the  Knights  of  Columbus 
Hut,  down  on  E  Street,  and  naturally  I  meet  quite  a  number  of  the 
soldier  boys  there,  and  naturally  I  take  to  the  boys  that  are  from 
the  West.  I  can  almost  single  them  out,  you  know,  and  they  know 
that  I  am  from  the  West,  and  sometimes  they  approach  me,'  and  in 
connection  with  this  soldier-home  bill  I  have  had  quite  a  number 
of  inquiries  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the  boys  know  that  I  get  up  to 
the  Capitol  at  times,  and  I  have  given  them  what  information  I 
could.  My  feeling  in  the  matter  has  been  to  help  them  wherever  I 
can  in  getting  information,  and  in  this  case,  in  connection  with  this 
man  Lehmann,  I  think  it  was  last  Friday  night  that  I  met  him  (bore 
:in<l  the  only  time  that  I  met  him. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  did  you  happen  to  meet  him?  Tell  the 
committee  everything  about  your  meeting  him. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  679 

Mr.  HARRIS.  As  I  recall — of  course  I  couldn't  say  definitely,  but 
in  effect  I  recall  that  I  met  him  there  at  the  Knights  of  Columbus — 
I  don't  know  whether  there  were  several  of  us  speaking  there  or  not, 
and  he  was  among  the  crowd — but  anyway,  I  learned  that  he  was 
from  the  West,  and  I  asked  about  his  services  across,  and  so  on — 
some  things  of  interest,  naturally — and  he  told  me  then  that  he  was 
going  to  his  parents  in  West  Virginia  somewhere  and  that  he  was 
going  out  West,  and  there  had  been  several  other  boys  previous 
to  that,  however,  that  I  had  given  some  information  in  regard  to 
coming  up  to  the  Public  Lands  Committee  here  to  get  some  data  on 
that  bill,  because  I  didn't  know  the  status  of  it,  and  they  had 
brought  some  down  there  for  some  of  the  other  boys.  So  I  told  this 
young  man  that  in  the  morning  if  he  wanted  to  go  up — I  asked 
him  if  he  had  been  to  the  Capitol,  and  he  said  no,  and  I  told  him  then 
that  I  would  be  glad  to  go  up  with  him  in  the  morning,  and  to  meet 
me  at  my  place  and  I  would  help  him  get  what  could  be  gotten  on  the 
matter.  So  I  came  up  here  then  and  called  in  your  office  adjoining 
here,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  they  said  there  were  hearings  on,  and  I 
asked  if  it  was  possible  to  listen,  and  they  said  yes,  it  was  an  open 
hearing,  and  I  brought  him  in  here,  and  then  I  left.  I  sat  here  about 
10  or  15  or  20  minutes,  or  such  a  matter,  listening  and  he  remained. 

So  that  is  the  sum  and  substance  of  my  acquaintenance  with  the 
gentleman.  I  haven't  seen  him  since  he  was  here,  but  my  whole 
interest  has  been — I  am  not  interested  in  lands;  I  have  no  lands  to 
sell  to  the  Government;  my  business  has  been  mainly  in  private 
lines — yes,  entirely  so.  The  only  thing  that  I  want  to  see  is  that 
private  initiative  can  go  ahead  and  have  its  way  and  get  away  from 
this  Government  business,  so  far  as  lands  or  anything  else  is  con- 
cerned. Of  course,  I  like  to  see  the  West  develop,  and  anything  that 
I  can  do  in  that  regard  is  going  to  be  done  at  all  times  in  the  general 
interest. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  interested  in  water  power  development, 
I  understand? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  I  am  interested  in  water  power,  irrigation,  and  rail- 
roads. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  appeared  before  the  Committee  on  Water 
Power  la>t  year? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Yes. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Before  this  committee? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Before  the  Committee  on  Water  Power.  But  I  want 
to  make  this  Matement  that  I  will  be  only  too  glad  when  we  get  some- 
thing done  along  that  line  so  I  can  get  back  home  and  get  to  work. 
1  a  MI  a  long  way  from  home,  about  3,000  miles,  I  guess. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Has  your  company  any  lands  that  you  expect  to 
turn  over  to  the  Government  if  this  bill  is  passed? 

Mr.  HAKIIIS.  No;  none  at  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Nichols,  do  you  want  to  question  the  witness  ? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  talked  to  Mr.  Lehmann.  Did  you  suggest  tbar 
he  come  down  here  and  make  a  statement  '. 

Mr.  HARRIS.  No.  sir.  The  fact  of  the  matter  is.  I  thought  the  status 
of  the  bill  at  that  time  was — I  had  a  general  idea,  if  I  had  any  idea 
at  all — that  the  thing  was  about  wound  up  and  that  he  could  get  what 
literature  he  wanted  and  get  the  matter  in  pretty  complete  form,, 
probably — that  is,  if  he  would  ask  for  information. 


680  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Haven't  you  talked  to  other  soldiers  about  it? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Absolutely.  They  have  asked  me  down  there  at  the 
Knights  of  Columbus  Hut  about*  it. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Haven't  you  gone  to  soldiers  on  your  own  account 
and  Drought  the  subject  up  with  them  of  the  soldier-land  bill?  Have 
not  you  brought  it  up  yourself  with  the  soldiers  without  them  com- 
ing to  you? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  I  don't  think  so. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Will  you  say  that  you  have  not  in  the  Knights  of 
Columbus  Hut? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Definitely  I  could  not  say.  It  may  have  been  this 
way,  that  there  may  have  been  several  there  and  somebody  would 
ask  me  while  I  was  talking  to  others  that  put  the  question. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Isn't  it  true  that  you  have  brought  this  subject  up 
yourself  ? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Not  that  I  recall,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Will  you  say  it  is  not  so  ? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  I  could  not  say  definitely,  but  not  that  I  recall. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Isn't  it  a  fact  that  it  is  well  known  among  the  boys 
around  the  Knights  of  Columbus  Hut  that  you  are  very  much 
interested  in  this  soldier  land  bill  and  that  you  have  been  generally 
talking  this  soldier  land  bill  around  the  Knights  of  Columbus  Hut 
to  such  an  extent  that  it  has  become  a  well-known  fact  that  you  are 
interested  in  this  bill  ? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Not  from  any  other  consideration  except  the  consid- 
eration I  just  enumerated. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  didn't  say  the  consideration;  I  just  asked  you  the 
question. 

Mr.  BARBOTTO.  I  suggest  that  the  witness  be  allowed  to  answer  the 
question. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Mr.  Chairman,  is  this  gentleman  on  trial  for 
having  committed  some  crime?  If  not,  I  don't  think  these  questions 
should  be  asked. 

Mr.  MATS.  Let  him  ask  anything  he  pleases. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  I  don't  object  to  the  witness  being  questioned,  but  I 
would  like  to  see  the  witness  answer. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  would  like  to  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  he,  down  at 
the  Knights  of  Columbus  or  Young  Men's  Christian  Association  or 
any  other  place,  has  presented  this  matter  fully  to  any  and  every 
soldier,  I  believe  he  was  only  doing  his  duty  and  nothing  beyond  thai. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  That  doesn't  seem  to  be  the  question,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  would  like  to  continue  my  questions. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  I  suggest  that  Mr.  Nichols  go  ahead  with  the 
questions. 

Mr.  HARRIS.  I  will  answer  the  question  that  I  am  interested  as  any 
man  would  be  interested  in  the  development  of  the  country  and  get- 
ting something  for  the  soldiers.  Bevond  that  I  am  not  interested  at 
all. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  But  haven't  you  made  yourself  conspicuously  active 
in  the  interests  of  this  bill,  so  that  it  was  generally  understood  that 
Mr.  Harris  of  Montana  is  very  much  interested  in  the  adoption  of 
this  measure? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  No;  I  couldn't  say  that,  outside  of  the  viewpoint  I 
just  presented. 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  681 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Well,  Mr.  Harris,  do  you  live  in  Washington ? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  I  live  in  Montana. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.    Whereabouts  in  Montana? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  What  part  of  Montana  ?    The  southeastern  portion. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  What  is  your  business? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Water-power  development  generally — water  power, 
irrigation,  and  transportation. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  How  long  have  you  been  in  Washington  ? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Well,  I  have  been  here  just  about  six  weeks,  and  pre- 
vious to  that  I  was  here — I  have  been  here  off  and  on  for  the  last  two 
years.  I  have  been  here  between  Washington,  York,  and  Pennsyl- 
vania, for  the  past  two  years. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  have  been  coming  to  Washington  for  a  number 
of  years,  haven't  you  ? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  The  first  trip  I  made  here  was  in  1914  in  connection 
with  water  power,  and  then  in  regard  to  the  nitrate  plant.  They  had 
hearings  before  the  War  Department  one  time  in  regard  to  locating  a 
nitrate  plant  somewhere,  and  they  considered  the  West  in  that  con- 
nection. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Are  you  in  the  employ  of  somebody  ? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Just  our  company. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  What  company  ? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  The  Big  Horn  Canyon  Irrigation  &  Power  Co., 
Hardin,  Mont. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  What  is  its  business? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Power,  irrigation,  and  railroads.  Of  course,  we 
haven't  built  any;  we  are  waiting  for  legislation. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Is  this  a  subsidiary  company  connected  with  other 
companies  ? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  No;  we  have  no  connections  to-day,  and  we  can't  get 
any  financial  connections  until  legislation  is  had  on  water  power. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  mean  water-power  legislation? 

Mr:  HARRIS.  Yes.  Irrigation,  of  course,  is  an  incident  to  the 
power.  We  build  a  dam  for  power,  and  irrigation  is  incident  to  it. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  are  in  Washington  now. 

Mr.  HARRIS.  In  Washington ;  yes. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  As  a  lobbyist  for  water  power? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Absolutely*  no.  I  am  here  as  a  general  manager  and 
president  of  our  company,  and  we  have  no  work  in  Montana  now. 
Our  work  is  all  here.  It  is  not  in  Montana,  because  we  are  stalled. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Are  you  a  lobbyist? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  I  am  not  a  lobbyist ;  no,  sir.  The  fact  is,  I  receive  no 
salary,  and  I  have  had  no  salary  for  several  years. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  represent  any  concern  in  New  York  City? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Only  in  this  way :  Mr.  Hugh  L.  Cooper  is  the  'con- 
sulting engineer  of  our — on  our — project  and  Gen.  Goethals. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  That  is  all  I  have. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  have  just  a  couple  of  random  questions.  Mr.  Harris, 
in  addition  ty>  appearing  before  the  Committee  on  Water  Power,  did 
you  have  any  matter  before  the  Department  of  the  Interior  in  regard 
to  application  for  rights  to  construct  your  dams,  etc.? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Oh,  yes;  the  maps  and  all  that  matter  have  been  filed, 
as  is  usual  in  a  case  of  that  kind.  We  have  had  a  great  deal  of  work 
with  the  Interior  Department. 


682  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  are  generally  interested  in  proper  legislation,  to 
the  end  that  the  water  power  of  the  country  might  be  developed  ? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Yes ;  so  much  so  that  we  can't  do  a  thing  until  there 
is  legislation  enacted. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  have  you  been  familiar  with  the  West  to  some 
extent? 

Mr  HARRIS.  Well,  I  think  probably  as  much  as  it  is  given  to  the 
ordinary  layman  to  be  familiar. 

Mr.  RAKER.  How  long  have  you  been  out  there  ? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  I  have  been  out  there  in  the  Northwest  since  1906. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Are  you  anyways  familiar  with  the  cut-over  lands  of 
the  Northwest  also  ?' 

Mr.  HARRIS.  You  have  reference  now  to  the  timberlands? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes. 

Mr  HARRIS.  Not  so  much  so.  In  our  eastern  territory  we  have  very 
little  of  that — in  the  eastern  part  of  the  State. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Are  you  anyways  acquainted  with  the  cut-over  lands 
in  Michigan,  Minnesota,  and  Wisconsin? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  No ;  as  to  those  lands,  I  am  only  acquainted  in  a  gen- 
eral way. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  are  in  no  ways  acquainted  with  the  unoccupied 
and  uncultivated  lands  of  the  Southern  States,  the  swamp  lands 
there? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Not  to  be  able  to  give  any  information  that  would  be 
of  value. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Are  you  acquainted  with  irrigation  projects  in  the 
West  conducted  by  the  Government  ? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Very  well,  indeed. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Are  you  anyways  familiar  with  the  irrigation  projects 
in  the  West  under  private  development  and  ownership  ? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  I  am. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  have  those  projects,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent, 
been  a  success? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  It  so  happens  that  in  my  observation  projects  which 
have  been  conducted  by  private  parties*  in  the  main  have  been  more 
successful,  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  they  were  in  close  touch  with 
the  situation  governing  the  case.  The  Government,  of  course,  is  far- 
fetched and  full  of  red  tape  ordinarily,  and  unless  it  is  a  tremendous 
big  project  that  private  parties  could  not  go  into,  that  would  not  be 
a  commendable  thing,  don't  you  see — of  course,  in  very  large  projects 
it  so  happens  that  you  have  got  to  take  water  sometimes  for  100  miles 
before  you  can  use  it,  and  there  the  Government,  of  course,  can  do 
the  thing  where  private  parties  could  not. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  I  want  to  know  is,  generally  speaking,  from 
your  personal  observation — you  are  in  that  line  of  work  to  a  greater 
or  less  extent — whether  or  not  they  have  developed  the  countries  or 
territories  that  were  unproductive  before  to  such  an  extent  that  they 
are  now  successful? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Yes,  indeed;  very  much  so.  The  Government  has — I 
will  state,  for  instance,  the  Himtley  project,  east  of  Billings  about 
12  miles,  is  a  very  successful  project.  Of  course,  gentlemen.  I  want 
you  to  have  this  impression,  too.  as  I  make  that  statement,  the  thing 
governing  that  condition  there  is  sugar  beets,  and  it  is  the  most 


HOMES  FOK  SOLDIERS.  683 

successful  sugar-beet  country,  I  think  probably,  that  there  is  in  the 
Northwest,  and  that,  of  course,  entered  into  the  situation  very  largely 
and  really  made  that  the  most  successful  reclamation  project  that 
the  United  States  Government  has. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well,  is  there  more  land  out  there  that  could  be  suc- 
cessfully irrigated,  that  is  not  irrigated  now,  that  is  open,  unoccu- 
pied, uncultivated  land  ? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Well,  I  want  to  make  this  statement,  gentlemen :  In 
1904  the  United  States  Government  made  a  survey — the  Reclamation 
Service — for  the  irrigation  of  46,000  acres  of  ground,  and  then  after 
more  thorough  investigation,  and  by  reason  of  the  lack  of  reclama- 
tion funds,  they  abandoned  the  project.  That  very  project  we  will 
cover  with  our  power  project — that  is,  we  will  increase  the  acreage 
from  46,000  acres  to  70,000  acres — and  the  irrigation  becomes  an  au- 
tomatic part  of  our  project.  You  see,  while  you  are  raising  water 
for  power,  we  raise  it  for  irrigating  the  ground,  and  that  is  where 
we  automatically  build  up  about  a  million  and  a  half  dollars'  worth 
of  irrigation  while  we  are  building  power;  so,  while  it  wouldn't  be 
a  practical  proposition  for  them,  it  is  for  us. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Outside  of  the  special  matter  you  speak  of,  generally 
over  those  Western  States  is  there  a  large  quantity  of  land  that  is 
susceptible  of  irrigation  and  cultivation  if  water  could  be  obtained? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Yes;  very  much. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well,  now,  you  have  looked  over  this  Lane  bill  and 
are  somewhat  familiar  with  the  general  situation.  I  will  ask  you  to 
state  to  the  committee  if,  from  your  observation  and  experience,  you 
believe  that  this  bill  will  be  workable  and  will  be  a  great  benefit  for 
the  United  States  if  enacted  into  law  ? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  I  want  to  say  this,  that  I  saw  a  page  or  two  of  the 
bill,  and  probably  read  the  first  five  lines  of  it,  and  that  is  all  that  I 
have  seen. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Just  one  question,  Mr.  Harris — 

Mr.  HARRIS  (interposing).  Just  one  moment  before  you  put  your 
question.  Finishing  my  answer,  the  idea,  in  my  opinion,  is  a  good 
one.  I  think  it  is  a  splendid  idea  to  get  the  land  in  that  way  for  re- 
turning soldiers,  I  don't  care  whore  it  is;  I  think  it  is  a  good  thing 
because  I  find  this  true  with  them — I  have  a  brother  that  is  serving 
and  he  left  his  bvisim>»  ;md  went  into  the  Army  and  came  back  and 
he  wanted  to  go  West.  He  was  not  satisfied  with  things  any  more.  I 
figure  that  very  many  of  them  are  unsettled,  and  this  is  a  thing  that 
is  likely  to  appeal  to  them.  They  want  to  get  somewhere  else.  It  is 
hard  for  them  to  go  back  to  business,  and  that  offers  an  opportunity 
for  such  as  want  to  change  their  location,  etc.  I  think  the  bill  offers 
very  good  opportunities  for  such  men  as  that. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Now.  Mr.  Harris,  of  course  if  a  great  deal  of  money 
is  spent  in  irrigating  Western  arid  land,  your  corporation  and  all 
other  corporations  of  that  kind  would  benefit,  either  directly  or  in- 
directly by  it? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  You  are  very  correct  about  that.  T  made  this  state- 
ment, that  every  bit  of  land  brought  into  cultivation  in  the  West 
creates  a  national  asset  or  a  Stale  a>sct  that  is  helpful  throughout 
the  State  and  throughout  the  Nation.  There  is  no  question  about 
that. 


684  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  VAILE.  And  it  would  not  only  be  of  peculiar  benefit  to  the 
corporations  engaged  in  irrigation  work,  but  to  the  whole  industry 
of  the  country. 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Not  the  corporation — I  think  that  should  be  elimi- 
nated. I  mean  the  public  at  large. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Why  do  you  eliminate  corporations?  Because  you 
represent  them? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  The  situation  is,  I  think  it  is  for  the  people  at  large. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Incidentally,  do  you  not  think  it  will  be  help- 
ful in  industrial  centers  of  the  East?  For  instance,  the  city  of  De- 
troit would  be  greatly  benefited  if  we  would  develop  the  West  so 
that  they  could  send  in  automobiles  and  threshing  machines  and 
mowing  machines. 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Absolutely.  Even  Wall  Street,  New  York,  for  in- 
stance, if  there  are  objections  from  there — 

Mr.  NICHOLS  (interposing).  You  are  getting  nearer  home — 

Mr.  HARRIS  (interposing).  We  have  got  to  come  East  to  finance 
and  so  on.  You  gentlemen  know  that  very  well. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  How  are  you  interested  in  the  city  of  Detroit? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Whether  I  would  be  or  not,  the  proposition  would 
still  be  the  same.  Of  course,  there  are  many  interests  in  the  country 
that  would  be  prosperous. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  The  truth  of  the  matter  is  that  you  represent  a  pri- 
vate corporation? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  And  you  are  in  favor  of  this  bill,  the  general  pur- 
poses of  it? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  The  general  principles  of  the  bill ;  yes. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  To  such  an  extent  that  you  have  talked  it  over  with 
quite  a  number  of  soldiers,  and  one  of  those  soldiers  that  you  dis- 
cussed it  with  came  here  and  made  a  statement. 

Mr.  HARRIS.  I  told  him  to  get  his  information  up  here  at  the  Pub- 
lic Lands  Committee ;  that  they  would  probably  have  it  and  would  be 
able  to  enlighten  him.  I  didn't  have  anything  on  it. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Did  he  ask  you  for  information  or  did  you  first  ap- 
proach him  ? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  He  asked  me  for  information,  as  I  recall  it. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Now,  Mr.  Harris,  how  did  he  come  to  ask  you  for 
information  ? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  I  couldn't  make  that  statement  definite^. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Why  should  he  ask  you  for  information? 
.  Mr.  HARRIS.  Well,  he  was  over  in  France,  and  you  know  he  had 
lost  touch  with  the  United  States  and  was  going  to  Virginia  and 
then  going  west. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  don't  think  that  he  heard  that  you  took  a  great 
interest  in  this  bill  ? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Now,  he  may  have  heard  from  the  boys  there — I  don't 
recall — the  boys  that  I  had  spoken  to. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  You  do  not  think  that  you  did  anything 
wrong  to  impart  information  to  the  soldiers,  do  you? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  No ;  oh,  no. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Nor  that  you  ought  to  apologize  to  anybody 
for  talking  to  these  men  about  anything  you  want  to  talk  to  them 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  685 

about  ?  Did  it  ever  occur  to  you  that  you  would  be  brought  up  here 
and  cross-questioned  for  giving  out  information  ? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  I  want  to  say 

Mr.  NICHOLS  (interposing).  Now,  just  a  minute— are  you  answer- 
ing my  question  or  Mr.  Smith's?  Who  is  questioning? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  were  questioning  him  first,  but  Mr.  Smith 
broke  in. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  And  we  ought  to  know  on  whose  time  he  is  to  be 
questioned  by  Mr.  Smith. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Did  anybody  ask  you  to  apologize?  Did  I  ask  you 
to  apologize  before  this  committee? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  No;  and,  gentlemen,  I  wrant  no  apologies.  I  think 
it  very 

Mr.  NICHOLS  (interposing).  Mr.  Smith  suggested  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Let  him  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Now,  the  question — I  have  lost  track  of  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  through  on  that  line? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  was  asking  Mr.  Harris  regarding  how  this  soldier 
came  to  ask  him,  but  Mr.  Smith  interrupted — how  the  soldier  hap- 
pened to  come  to  him. 

Mr.  HARRIS.  I  could  not  recall. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  And  I  asked  you 

Mr.  SMITH  (interposing).  You  had  better  ask  the  soldier  that 
question.  Is  he  here  ? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  No ;  he  is  not  here. 

Do  you  know  how  he  happened  to  come  to  you  ? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Do  I  know  how  he  happened  to  come  up  here? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  No;  to  you  personally. 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Well,  as  I  say,  as  I  recall,  I  met  him  at  the  entrance 
of  the  Knights  of  Columbus'Hall. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  said  he  came  to  you  and  asked  you. 

Mr.  HARRIS.  As  I  recall;  yes.  We  were  speaking,  however,  of 
other  matters,  you  understand,  and  I  learned  that  he  had  come  from 
across  the  water ;  I  learned  that  he  was  from  the  West,  and  naturally 
he  was  asking  questions,  and  I  feel  that  he  asked  me.  I  couldn't  say 
definitely.  Of  course  I  know  this  much,  that  I  was  willing  to  impart 
any  information  I  could. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  think  that  he  came  to  you  because  it  was 
generally  understood  by  the  boys  around  there  that  you  were  inter- 
ested in  this  proposition  ? 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  think  that  question 
is  relevant  at  all,  because  how  can  he  know  what  induced  the  soldier 
to  come  to  him? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  he  can  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  HARRIS.  I  say.  I  have  that  idea,  that  he  got  his  information 
from  the  boys  around  there,  that  probably  I  knew  a  little  something 
about  it,  or  could  put  him  wise  to  where  he  could  get  some  informa- 
tion. 

Mr.  ELSTOX.  Was  there  any  understanding  between  you  and  the 
soldier  that  he  should  come  up  here  and  represent  a  particular  line 
of  argument  that  you  suggested  to  him,  and  in  a  way  be  your  repre- 
sentative here,  and  an  agent  to  misrepresent  the  opinion  of  the 
soldier  ?  Did  anything  like  that  pass  between  you  ? 


686  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  HARRIS.  That  idea  is  absolutely  wrong,  because  the  soldier  boy 
just  came  up  here  to  get  this  information. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  The  imputation  here  was  that  this  is  some  kind  of  a 
cooked  up  deal  between  you  and  the  soldier,  by  which  he  came  up 
here  and  you  were  attempting  to  put  over  something. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  submit  that  that  is  perfectly 
unfair. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Now,  Mr.  Nichols,  that  implication — that  is  not  in- 
vidous,  but  you  have  implied  that  as  a  fact. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  have  not  implied  that  the  soldier  was  in  the  deal. 
What  I  said  specifically  was  that  unconsciously  the  soldier  was  being 
made  use  of,  and  I  repeat  what  I  said. 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Well,  then,  I  will  make 

Mr.  NICHOLS  (interposing).  I  said  "unconsciously"  the  soldier — 
I  am  perfectly  satisfied  with  the  soldier. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Let  me  ask  Mr.  Nichols  a  question,  if  I  may.  Who, 
in  your  opinion,  was  making  use  of  the  soldier,  either  with  the 
soldier's  consciousness  or  without?  Who  was  making  use  of  him? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  The  people  that  Mr.  Harris  represents,  and  people 
that  I  can't  tell  you  now  all  the  names  that  he  does  represent,  either 
directly  or  indirectly. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Well,  what  do  you  think  Mr.  Harris — what  does  your 
information  disclose  that  Mr.  Harris  sought  to  do  with  that  soldier? 
What  was  in  your  mind?  All  I  am  trying  to  get  at  is  what  was  in 
your  mind  as  to  what  Mr.  Harris  did  with  that  soldier,  and  I  say  to 
the  committee  frankly  that  I  ask  this  question  for  a  purpose,  because 
I  had  something  to  do  with  that  soldier  myself  after  I  got  up  here, 
and  I  want  to  get  it  straight  in  my  mind.  What  is  it,  Mr.  Nichols, 
that  you  think  Mr.  Harris  actually  did  to  bring  about  any  misuse  of 
that  soldier,  or  any  use  of  him  at  all,  other  than  a  perfectly  proper 
one? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Well,  I  don't  know  that  I  care  to  make  any  state- 
ment at  this  time  before  the  committee.  Mr.  Harris  is  up  here  to 
answer  questions  and  I  am  asking  questions.  He  stated  specifically 
that  he  represents  a  private  corporation  that  has  an  interest  in  having 
this  bill  enacted,  because  it  means  so  much  to  the  particular  section 
of  the  country  that  this  corporation  is  doing  business  in,  and  that 
they  are  very  much  interested  in  seeing  this  bill  enacted. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Is  there  anything  wrong  about  that,  Mr.  Nichols  ? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  think  it  is  wrong  if  Congress  and  a  congressional 
committee  is  endeavoring,  sincerely  and  earnestly  and  conscien- 
tiously, as  I  think  this  committee  is,  to  enact  a  law,  the  purpose  of 
which  is  to  aid  the  soldiers  to  own  a  home  and  to  readjust  themselves 
after  this  war — I  think  that  it  is  wrong  and  it  has  a  suspicious  sur- 
rounding altogether  that  private  concerns  are  showing  a  deep  inter- 
est in  the  enactment  of  this  legislation. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Have  you  shown  anything  like  that? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Where  is  the  proof  of  that? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  The  proof  of  it  is  right  here  in  Mr.  Harris.  He 
told  you  who  he  represents. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Not  on  this  proposition,  though,  Mr.  Nichols. 
Mr.   NICHOLS.  No;   but  generally   in   Washington.     He   lolls  you 
who  he  is  employed  by. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  687 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Nichols,  do  you  think  it  is  part  of  the  overt 
act  that  he  brought  this  gentleman  up  here  to  get  the  information? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Oh,  the  general  disposition  is  to  help  to  put  this 
over  if  they  can. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  all  that  appears,  that  he  brought  this 
soldier  into  this  room,  and  the  soldier  sat  here  and  engaged  in  a  con- 
versation with  Mr.  Ferris,  the  former  chairman  of  this  committee, 
and  Mr.  Ferris  on  his  own  initiative  invited  the  gentleman,  the  sol- 
dier, to  testify  before  the  committee.  What  I  am  trying  to  locate 
or  discover  is  the  overt  act  of  this  conspiracy — alleged  conspiracy. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Well,  if  you  gentlemen  want  to  laugh  at  it,  you  go 
ahead  and  laugh  at  it,  but  I  tell  you  it  is  a  mighty  interesting  thing 
.and  it  is  a  mighty  suspicious  thing,  in  my  mind.  Whether  it  im- 
presses any  of  you  gentlemen  or  not,  it  is  a  mighty  suspicious  thing 
that  we  have  at  least  traced  one  private  corporation  from  the  far 
West  that  will  benefit  by  the  enactment  of  this  legislation,  whose 
representative  he  is. 

Mr.  MAYS.  In  what  way  will  they  benefit? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  He  testified  that. 

Mr.  MAYS.  In  what  way? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  He  testified  to  it,  and  you  look  it  up — that  they. 
It  is  suspicious  that  they  should  show  an  interest  in  putting  this 
legislation  over,  to  the  extent  of  having  one  of  their  agents,  at  any 
rate,  show  a  particular  interest  in  this  legislation. 

Mr.  MAYS.  I  want  to  ask  a  question  there. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Hersman  has  been  endeavoring  to  get  the 
floor. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Mr.  Harris,  did  you  know  that  there  was  a  hear- 
ing going  on  before  this  committee,  where  the  soldier  could  testify? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  No;  I  didn't  know  a  thing  about  it.  I  haven't 'been 
to  any  hearings. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Did  you  ask  the  soldier  to  come  up  here  and  testify? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Absolutely,  no. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Now  I  was  not  here  yesterday  and  I  may  be  a  little 
insistent  about  this,  but  I  think  that  a  statement  is  due  here  from 
me.  I  don't  know  whether  the  committee  will  hear  me  or  not 

Mr.  VAILE  (interposing).  I  think  it  is  due  from  Mr.  Ferris. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Absolutely  that  soldier  had  no  more  intention  of 
making  a  speech  before  this  committee  than  I  have  of  addressing  the 
Versailles  conference.  I  went  right  over  there  and  sat  down  by  him 
and  asked  him  his  name — I  had  never  seen  him  before — and  asked 
him  if  he  knew  anything  about  this  bill.  He  said  a  Young  Men's 
Christian  Association  concern  in  France  had  explained  it  to  him, 
and  that  he  was  interested  in  it.  I  said,  "  Would  you  like  to  say  a 
word  about  it  ?  "  He  said,  "  I  can't  talk.  I  never  spoke  on  my  feet  in 
my  life."  I  said,  "  I  have  heard  something  of  the  terms  of  this 
to-day,  and  they  explained  it  to  me  over  in  France."  Then  I  said, 
•"  Wouldn't  you  like  to  say  a  word  before  the  committee  ?  "  He  re- 
plied that  he  wouldn't  mind  if  we  wanted  him  to,  and  I  went  over 
and  suggested  to  the  chairman  that  he  be  called  on.  and  the  reason 
I  state  this  is  that  I  don't  think  we  ought  to  get  a  man,  Mr.  Harris 
or  anybody  else,  up  here  and  cook  up  a  lot  of  surreptitious  imagin- 
ings and  fry  to  make  something  out  of  it.  That  soldier  had  no  in- 

133319—19 44 


688  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

tention  whatever  of  addressing  the  committee,  and  I  went  and  ar- 
ranged with  the  chairman  to  have  him  address  the  committee  if  he 
would.  I  called  on  him  myself  to  make  an  address.  I  never  saw  the 
soldier  before ;  I  have  never  seen  him  since,  and  I  never  spoke  a  word 
to  Mr.  Harris  on  the  subject  in  my  life.  I  stated  yesterday  that  I 
had  never  seen  Mr.  Harris;  I  think  I  saw  him  before  the  Water 
Power  Committee. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  And  you  did  not  know  what  he  was  going 
to  say,  whether  he  was  for  the  bill  or  against  it  ? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  He  told  me  there  that  he  thought  he  was  for  the  bill. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  Does  his  testimony,  Mr.  Ferris,  show  the  earmarks  of 
a  slick,  insidious  propaganda? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Absolutely  not.  This  whole  thing  is  a  tempest  in  a 
teapot  that  does  not  reflect  credit  on  this  committee. 

Mr.  WHITE.  He  never  stated  that  it  did,  Mr.  Elston.  He  stated 
repeatedly  and  consecutively  a  dozen  times  that  nobody  thought  the 
soldier  had  any  such  purpose. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  be  in  order.  Mr.  Mays  has  the 
floor. 

Mr.  MAYS.  I  started  to  ask  a  question  of  the  witness.  Mr.  Nichols 
has  just  stated  that  this  propaganda  has  been  traced  to  one  private 
corporation  which  would  be  peculiarly  benefited  by  this  legislation. 
I  want  to  ask  Mr.  Harris  if  his  corporation  would  be  benefited 
peculiarly  by  this  legislation. 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Absolutely  no ;  not  any  more  than  any  other  corpora- 
tion wherever  a  project  of  the  kind  might  be  located,  or  something 
of  that  kind. 

Mr.  MATS.  Do  you  have  any  land  that  you  thing  possibly  might 
be  bought  by  the  Government  upon  which  a  project  might  be  insti- 
tuted? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  No;  the  Government  in  our  Territory  has  no  land 
for  sale  in  the  first  place,  that  I  know  of.  It  is  Indian  reservation 
around  there,  in  the  main. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Does  your  company  have  any  land  that  you  might  hope 
to  sell? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  No;  no  land  at  all. 

Mr.  VAILE.  HaAre  you  any  water  that  you  could  sell  to  the  Govern- 
ment for  these  or  other  lands  in  that  vicinity  where  the  water  could 
be  used? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Under  existing  conditions  out  there  to-day  as  to  our 
irrigation  feature,  we  would  be  able  to  increase  the  irrigation  area 
about  70,000  acres  by  gravity  and  probably  40,000  acres  by  lifting. 
But  that  land,  gentlemen,  is  owned  by  whites  and  by  Indians  to-day,, 
and  they,  probably,  of  course,  would  see  to  it  that  they  had  wrater  for 
the  land,  you  know.  It  would  be  a  beneficial  proposition,  provided 
the  water  was  cheap  enough. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Mr.  Harris,  isn't  it  a  fact  that  if  70,000  acres  of 
irrigated  land  there  under  private  ownership  was  put  on  the  market, 
and  this  bill  was  enacted,  that  this  would  come  in  direct  competition 
with  that?  If  this  Mondell  bill  were  enacted  and  there  were  other 
projects  opened  up  all  over  the  United  States,  I  say  that  would  come 
in  competition  with  any  private  projects? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Naturally  the  territory  would  have  to  stand  on  its. 
merits. 


HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS.  689 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  believe  Mr.  Harris  very  fully  understands  that  he 
has  a  right  to  talk  to  one  soldier  or  to  every  soldier  for  or  against 
this  bill. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Or  about  any  other  bill  or  subject. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Or  any  other  person.  And  the  impression  is  being 
given  over  and  over  again  that  when  a  man  goes  out  and  talks  to  a 
soldier  in  regard  to  this  bill  that  he  is  doing  something  improper, 
and  I  maintain  that  he  is  only  exercising  the  rights  of  an  American 
citizen,  and  when  he  goes  out  of  his  way  to  talk  this  to  a  soldier  he 
is  only  doing  a  patriotic  duty  toward  that  soldier  and  toward  his 
country.  If  he  believes  in  the  bill,  well  and  good;  if  he  is  opposed  to 
it  and  steers  a  soldier  away  from  it,  he  is  doing  the  same  thing,  and 
regardless  of  which  side  he  is  on,  I  don't  think  that  any  improper 
motives  ought  to  be  imputed  to  that  man  for  talking  to  soldiers  if 
they  want  information.  They  have  been  trying  to  get  it  in  France; 
they  are  writing  to  me  from  my  part  of  the  country  in  regard  to  it, 
and  wherever  you  go — I  was  in  Xew  York  the  other  day,  and  they 
were  asking  me  up  there  in  regard  to  this  bill  and  what  it  meant,  and 
when  there  would  be  land  available  and  all  those  things,  and  I  think 
I  had  a  perfect  right  to  give  them  the  fullest  explanation  of  which 
I  was  capable,  and  I  don't  think  that  this  is  a  proposition  that  is  go- 
ing to  benefit  any  particular  part  of  the  country.  There  has  been 
some  reference  to  Detroit  and  its  automobiles.  I  will  say  for  the 
information  of  the  committee  this  morning  that  in  Yakima  County 
in  the  State  of  Washington,  where  we  have  140,000  acres  of  irri- 
gated land,  they  are  running  more  than  5,000  automobiles,  whereas 
they  possibly  would  have  been  operating  300  or  400  without  that 
development,  and  it  is  benefiting  the  soldier  back  in  Detroit  just  the 
same  as  it  would  benefit  a  soldier  some  place  else  on  the  land. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Gandy,  do  you  desire  to  ask  a  question? 

Mr.  GANDT.  I  don't  desire,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  ask  the  witness  any 
questions,  but  as  one  member  of  this  committee,  I  do  want  to  say 
that  the  time  has  been  limited  and  it  doesn't  occur  to  me  that  it  is 
fair  in  the  least  for  this  committee  to  take  up  all  the  time  with  one 
witness  here,  and  if  you  will  pardon  the  expression,  wrangling 
among  ourselves  as  to  this  or  that  or  the  other,  and  we  ought  to  have 
some  definite  time  for  each  witness  and  go  ahead  with  him.  There 
are  other  witnesses  that  want  to  be  heard. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  it  was  the  desire  of  the  committee  to  be 
pretty  liberal  with  this  witness.  He  is  really  not  a  witness ;  he  is  un- 
der investigation. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  might  say  under  suspicion. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  want  to  ask  the  witness  some  direct  questions. 

Are  you  pretty  familiar,  Mr.  Harris,  with  the  agricultural  condi- 
tions in  the  State  of  Montana  at  the  present  time?  How  about 
Fergus  County,  for  instance? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  I  don't  know  about  that. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Well,  how  long  has  it  been  since  you  have  been  in 
Montana? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Well,  of  course,  I  am  in  touch  with  it  every  day. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Did  yon  ever  live  there? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Yes:'l  lived  there  since  1906.    I  homesteaded  there. 


690  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  WHITE.  And  you  are  pretty  well  acquainted  with  the  topog- 
raphy of  the  country  generally? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Yes. 

Mr.  WHITE.  You  know,  Mr.  Harris,  that  the  bench  lands  of  Mon- 
tana are  being  continually  developed,  that  they  are  finding  small 
tracts  of  land  that  a  few  years  ago  were  thought  to  be  not  important 
enough  for  agricultural  purposes,  but  that  land  is  naturally  well 
watered  and  they  are  raising  enormous  crops  all  through  those  bench 
lands — almost  a 'sure  thing.  They  raise  45  bushels  of  wheat  to  the 
acre.  You  know,  too,  that  those  farmers  are  making  good  profits, 
operating  very  successfully;  that  they  are  buying  trucks  and  trans- 
porting their  products  to  market  on  the  Milwaukee  and  the  other 
roads  that  penetrate  that  country.  Do  you  know  if  there  are  num- 
bers of  segregated  tracts  of  land  that  are  for  sale  throughout  the 
State  of  Montana,  this  productive  land,  in  small  tracts,  SO  acres  or 
100  acres,  or  160  acres?  Can  you  answer  that  question? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  I  will  answer  it  in  this  way,  that  land  is  changing 
hands  very  much  there  all  the  time;  yes. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Well,  you  regard  those  segregated  tracts,  then,  as  a 
good  investment?  They  have  a  commercial  value  fixed  on  the  basis 
of  their  revenue-producing  power? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Any  land  in  the  Northwest  that  is  good  land  is  grow- 
ing in  value. 

Mr.  WHITE.  That  is  true  all  over  the  United  States.  Now,  I  want 
to  ask  you  this  question,  Mr.  Harris.  We  will  say,  for  instance, 
that  a  young  soldier  that  has  returned  from  the  war,  who,  we  will 
say,  enlisted  from  Montana,  from  one  of  these  districts,  and  he  wants 
to  go  into  business.  Having  only  a  small  capital,  do  you  think  that 
if  he  could  buy  a  tract  of  this  land,  selecting  it  from  his  own  personal 
knowledge  of  the  adaptability  for  the  products  they  raise  there, 
and  the  Government  would  loan  him  a  percentage  of  the  purchase 
price,  would  he  have  a  good  prospect  to  succeed? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Why,  I  feel  so.    I  think  he  would. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Well,  don't  you  believe  that  he  would  have  as  good 
a  prospect  to  succed  as  he  would  have  under  a  Government  project? 
He  would  have  the  advantage,  Mr.  Harris,  of  having  a  thorough 
familiarity  with  the  local  conditions.  He  would  have  the  advice 
of  his  father  and  his  friends. 

Mr.  HARRIS.  There  is  this  difference:  Of  course,  you  would  benefit 
in  one  respect  but  you  might  lose  in  another.  As  I  understand  the 
plan  of  the  Government,  it  is  to  get  a  community  together.  Now, 
he  might  have  to  buy  an  isolated  tract  in  order  to  get  what  he  wanted. 
I  will  explain  that.  We  will  say,  for  instance,  here  is  an  Indian 
allotment  that  was  barren,  nothing  doing  there;  he  bought  an  ad- 
joining tract 

Mr.  WHITE  (interposing).  Now,  my  question  applies  to  the  case 
•where  there  is  an  opportunity  to  buy  by  this  land ;  make  a  selection 
that  will  be  satisfactory  to  the  soldier. 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Still  the  difference  is  there.  The  difference  is  that 
by  somebody  taking  the  lead  and  laying  out  and  planning  a  project 
on  a  large  scale,  it  would  make  the  project  a  more  successful  propo- 
sition than  where  the  party  went  out  and  selected  a  piece  of  ground 
isolated  from  transportation,  etc.  There  would  be  that  difference. 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  691 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  am  speaking  about  these  remote  tracts  being 
connected  by  truck  travel  and  automobile  with  all  these  stations 
along  these  railroads. 

Mr.  HARRIS.  He  would  naturally  go  to  the  place  where  the  land 
was  cheapest,  and  that  would  be  isolated.  That  is  the  general  propo- 
sition where  the  fellow  hasn't  got  funds,  you  know. 

Mr.  WHITE.  But  you  say  there  are  plenty  of  those  tracts  and  they 
are  for  sale  and  are  changing  hands  constantly? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Either  plan,  in  my  opinion,  is  a  good  plan. 

Mr.  WHITE.  And  those  lands  are  worth  what  they  cost,  based  on 
the  well-known  sagacity  and  business  judgment  of  land  speculators 
and  buyers  and  sellers '4 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Yes. 

Mr.  WHITE.  That  is  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Harris. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  I  would  like  to  call  up  the  remark  made  by  Mr. 
Nichols  a  moment  ago,  that,  as  it  goes  into  the  record,  leaves  it  in 
rather  an  unsatisfactory  way.  Mr.  Nichols  said  that  this  witness 
was  under  suspicion.  Am  I  correct,  Mr.  Nichols? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  was  expressing  his  own  opinion. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  I  wanted  that  to  appear.  I  didn't  want  it  to  ap- 
pear that  that  was  the  opinion  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Under  suspicion  so  far  as  I  am  concerned. 

Mr.  VAILE.  I  might  add  that  I  don't  think  that  he  is  under  in- 
dictment, so  far  as  I  am  concerned? 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  No ;  nor  under  suspicion,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned. 
Now,  I  have  heard  this  discussion,  and  I  haven't  heard  a  thing  or 
a  word  that  warrants  any  suspicion  against  Mr.  Harris.  Now,  would 
you  mind  stating,  Mr.  Nichols,  the  reason  why  he  is  under  suspicion 
with  you  ?  I  think  that  is  due  in  fairness  to  Mr.  Harris. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Well,  now,  supposing  you  ask  the  other  members  of 
the  committee  who  have  said  he  was  under  indictment. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  That  was  a  joking  remark. 

Mr.  VAILE.  I  just  explained  that  remark. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Does  Mr.  Nichols  care  to  answer  that  question? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  want  to  know  why  I  think  he  is  under  supicion  ? 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Yes;  your  reason  for  that  statement,  why  he  is 
under  suspicion  by  you.  I  think  that  is  only  fair  to  the  witness. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  think  the  witness  is  deeply  concerned  as  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  corporation  that  he  says  he  represents  here,  the  Big 
Horn  Investment  Co. 

Mr.  HARRIS.  The  Big  Horn  Canyon  Irrigation  &  Power  Co. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  That  as  an  agent  of  this  corporation 

Mr.  HARRIS  (interposing).  As  an  officer.  I  am  president  and  gen- 
eral manager  of  it. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  are  the  representative  here  of  that  corporation  ? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Yes :  the  only  representative. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  President  and  general  manager,  he  states. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  But  he  doesn't  come  here,  does  he,  Mr.  Chairman, 
in  the  capacity  of  an  officer  in  a  corporation  ?  He  comes  here  because 
he  was  asked  to  come. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Well,  I  will  continue,  and  say  that  as  a  representa- 
tive of  this  corporation  he  has  shown  an  interest  in  the  enactment 
of  this  legislation,  and  I  think  it  is  a  very  suspicion  thing— a  sus- 


G92  HOMES   FOK  SOLDIERS. 

picious  thing  to  me — that  a  private  corporation,  with  a  representa- 
tive in  Washington,  who  has  appeared  before  various  committees 
regarding  the  development  of  the  western  district 

The  CHAIRMAN   (interposing).  Water  power. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Water  power — should  show  as  much  interest  as  it 
appears  here  he  has  shown  by  talking  to  numbers  of  soldiers  re- 
garding this  legislation? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  concluded? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  That  answers  my  question. 

Mr.  HARRIS.  I  would  like  to  just  make  a  few  remarks. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  would  like  to  ask  one  more  question.  The  question 
I  want  to  ask  you,  Mr.  Harris,  is  do  you  believe  that  in  a  case  sucli 
as  I  have  indicated  that  the  young  man  with  an  experience  in  agri- 
culture throughout  a  lifetime  should  buy  a  tract  of  this  segre- 
gated land,  that  it  would  be  a  safe  thing  for  the  Government  to  loan 
him  a  part  of  the  purchase  price,  so  far  as  solvency  on  the  part  of 
the  Government  is  concerned  ?  Would  it  be  a  good  bet  for  the  Gov- 
ernment ? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  Well,  it  would  in  the  main,  I  think.  Of  course  it 
would  depend  then  on  the  man.  It  would  depend  also  on  the  terri- 
tory. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Certainly  it  would  depend  on  that.    I  admit  all  that. 

Mr.  HARRIS.  I   want   to    make    a    statement    for   the    gentleman 

Mr.  BARBOUR  (interposing).  Do  you  mean  Mr.  Nichols? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  That  when  the  war  broke  out  we  had  many  men  in 
our  territory  that  went  to  the  young  fellow  who  was  going  to  war 
and  patted  him  on  the  shoulder  and  said,  "  How  I  envy  you  that 
I  am  not  in  your  place."  The  soldier  went  across  the  water,  a  young 
fellow  taken  not  at  his  own  volition  to  go  into  the  Army,  but  he 
went  because  the  Government  wanted  him  to  and  put  him  in.  I 
don't  feel  like  the  fellow  that  did  the  clapping  on  his  shoulder,  and 
said,  "How  I  envy  you."  I  have  always  had  a  sympathy  for  the 
boys.  Some  of  our  engineers  had  to  go  over  there,  and  especially 
is  that  true  of  the  men  coming  from  the  West;  that  they  had  just 
made  a  start,  and  they  quit  everything  and  went  away  to  war,  and  if 
I  can  do  anything  in  any  way  to  help  them  along  I  am  going  to  do 
it,  and  that  is  my  motive  in  probably  showing  an  interest  in  the  sol- 
dier boy.  I  don't  Avant  to  be  hypocritical  about  it,  but  he  has  always 
had  my  sympathy. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Now,  Mr.  Harris,  if  I  may  ask  you  one  question,  do 
you  believe  that  they  should  help  all  the  boys  that  went  to  the  front, 
that  went  to  the  Army? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  I  think  the  Government  in  its  discretion  will  know 
best  how  to  handle  the  matter. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  say  you  are  interested  in  doing  something  for 
the  soldier  who  went  to  the  front  and  whom  we  all  honor. 

Mr.  HARRIS.  I  certainly  am  interested. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  We  all  are.  Do  you  think  that  we  should  do  some- 
thing for  all  of  them? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  I  think  we  should  do  the  things  that  judgment  would 
we  do  to  help  the  situation  along. 


HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS.  693 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  know,  but  you  are  showing  an  interest,  as  you  un- 
doubtedly have,  in  the  soldier.  Now  are  you  in  favor  of  enacting 
legislation  that  will  attempt  to  give  Government  aid  to  all  of  the  ap- 
proximately 4,500,000  men  that  were  in  the  Army  and  Navy  ? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  To  the  extent  that  it  would  encourage  the  boy  to  get 
out  and  make  good  for  himself,  and  in  that  way  make  good  for  the 
Government  and  increase  the  national  credit.  We  have  got  debts 
enough,  and  we  ought  to  reduce  it.  To  that  extent  we  ought  to  en- 
courage the  soldier  boy  to  go  and  make  good. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  know  how  many  soldiers  could  be  aided  by 
the  provisions  of  this  bill  ? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  I  haven't  the  slightest  idea. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Well,  if  it  should  only  be  able  to  provide  for  ap- 
proximately 100,000,  do  you  think  it  would  be  a  good  bill? 

Mr.  HA&KIB.  Any  bill  that  will  provide  for  helping  100,000  boys 
in  a  practical  way,  I  consider  that  a  good  bill. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Would  you  believe  in  giving  some  Government  aid 
to  all  the  soldiers? 

Mr.  HARRIS.  I  think  the  Government  aided  them  to  get  away  from 
thoir  work  and  should  aid  them  to  get  back.  That  is  the  way  I  feel 
about  it. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  that  it  is  fair  to  this  gentle- 
man— I  have  never  seen  him  before  and  know  nothing  of  him,  but  I 
think  it  is  fair  to  him  for  the  committee  to  say  that  he  has  acquitted 
himself  admirably  before  this  committee;  that  he  has  shown  no  in- 
terest whatever  in  this  bill  except  such  interest  as  would  be  prompted 
by  his  patriotism,  his  love  for  his  country,  and  the  soldiers,  and  I 
would  not  think  it  proper  for  him  to  leave  this  committee  feeling 
that  the  committee  felt  that  he  had  acted  suspiciously  at  all,  and  so 
far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  think  his  conduct  is  beyond  suspicion. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  You  make  a  motion  to  that  effect? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  your  statement  is  true.  I  think  it  is  a  case 
of  "trifles  light  as  air  that  jaundiced  minds  become  confirmation 
strong  as  truths  of  Holy  Writ."  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  ELSTON.  You  make  that  motion? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  ELSTON.  I  second  the  motion,  that  this  witness  be  relieved  of 
suspicion. 

Mr.  RAKER.  We  don't  want  any  motion;  the  committee  is  using  its 
discretion. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  be  in  order.  Gentlemen 
of  the  committee,  under  a  rule  made  yesterday,  three  hours'  time 
will  be  devoted  to  the  opponents  of  the'  bill,  to  be  followed  by  three 
hours  from  the  proponents  of  the  bill.  Now,  we  are  ready  to  hear 
the  opponents. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  mean,  Mr.  Chairman,  general  debate? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No;  the  rule  was  that  the  hearings  would  be 
extended  three  hours  to  the  opponents  of  the  bill  and  three  hours  to 
the  proponents  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Was  that  done  yesterday? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  was  done  yesterday;  yes. 

Now,  the  regular  order  of  business  is  to  hear  some  one  who  is 
against  the  bill.  Is  there  any  witness  in  the  room  who  is  opposed 
to  the  bill  ?  If  so,  he  may  step  forward. 


694  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  GANDY.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  a  witness  here  who  is  against 
the  bill  as  it  stands. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Will  you  introduce  your  witness,  Mr.  Gandy? 

Mr.  GANDY.  This  is  Mr.  Jeffries. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Will  you  state  your  name  and  whom  you  repre- 
sent, and  your  residence? 

STATEMENT  OF  ME.  HUGH  JEFFRIES,  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  AMERI- 
CAN MILITARY  REFORM  ASSOCIATION. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  My  name  is  Hugh  Jeffries,  president  of  the  Ameri- 
can Military  Eeform  Association.  My  residence  is  Danbury,  Wis. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  With  what  organization  were  you  connected 
in  the  Army? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  The  Twenty-third  Regiment  of  Engineers,  L  Com- 
pany, A.  E.  F. 

Mr.  GANDY.  Before  you  start,  for  the  benefit  of  the  record,  will 
you  state  the  position  that  you  were  in  before  you  went  into  the 
service  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  am  a  highway  engineer,  engaged  in  highway  work 
under  the  Wisconsin  Highway  Commission  for  about  four  years 
previous  to  enlisting  in  the  Twenty-third  Engineers,  which  is  the 
highway  regiment  of  the  Army.  I  was  in  1916  and  1917  secretary- 
treasurer  of  the  Wisconsin  Highway  Commissioners  Association. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.    You  are  now  a  sergeant  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  was  a  sergeant;  yes,  sir.  I  am  discharged  from 
the  Army.  I  have  an  honorable  discharge. 

Mr.  GANDY.  And  just  further,  for  the  record,  before  you  start  in> 
you  saw  service  overseas  and  at  the  front? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir ;  I  was  with  L  Company  of  the  Twenty-third 
Engineers,  and  we  went  through  the  Lorraine  front  with  the  Rain- 
bow Division  early  in  May  of  1918,  and  were  in  the  zone  of  action 
continuously  until  after  the  armistice  was  signed.  We  were  in  direct 
contact  with  and  along  with  10  different  combat  divisions,  and  saw 
them  in  action. 

Mr.  GANDY.  Now,  Mr.  Jeffries,  if  you  will  permit  me,  if  you  are 
not  in  favor  of  this  bill  as  it  stands,  tell  the  committee  why  and  what 
amendments  you  would  favor. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  wish  to  state  to  the  committee  that  I  have  been — I 
have  taken  part  in  a  great  many  discussions  and  informal  confer- 
ences among  the  soldiers  in  regard  to  this  proposition,  both  in  France 
and  in  the  United  States.  I  will  say  that  I  represent  no  private 
concern  in  any  way,  shape  or  form,  but  I  do  represent  a  great  many 
soldiers  who  are  very  deeply  interested  in  this  proposition,  and  I 
know  from  my  own  personal  knowledge  and  contact  directly  and 
indirectly  with  about  300,000  of  these  soldiers — I  know  something 
of  the  questions  which  have  arisen  in  their  minds  and  have  been  pro- 
pounded in  regard  to  the  feasibility  and  the  advisability  and  the  ap- 
plicability of  this  proposed  act,  and  I  have  prepared  a  list  of  ques- 
tions,  questions  which  have  been  asked  of  me  and  asked  of  others 
many  times  in  regard  to  the  bill,  10  in  number,  and  if  you  have  the 
time,  I  would  like  to  take  up  particularly  two  or  three  of  these  ques- 
tions. Now,  what  is  your  pleasure,  gentlemen  ? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I  would  like  to  hear  him. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  695 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Shall  I  read  the  entire  list? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Read  whatever  you  want  to. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  These  are  questions  of  the  enlisted  man. 

No.  1.  What  assurance  has  the  enlisted  man  that  in  the  administering  of 
this  plan  the  employment  of  ex-Army  officers  in  desirable  salaried  positions 
would  not  be  fostered  without  regard  for  real  ability  and  merit? 

I  think  that  is  the  first  question  in  the  mind  of  the  enlisted  man 
nearly  always.  We  have  seen  a  great  deal  of  favoritism  and  patron- 
age. We  have  been  very  closely  held  by  a  governmental  system,  a 
military  system  in  which  it  has  been  brought  very  forcibly  to  our 
notice,  and  that  we  are  afraid  of. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Just  what  do  you  mean  by  that,  Mr.  Jeffries  ?  In  what 
particular  line  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  In  the  administering  of  the  act,  an  organization 
would  have  to  be  either  expanded  very  considerably,  or  a  new  or- 
ganization, neAv  bureaus  created. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  mean  that  under  the  provisions  of  section  3, 
lines  4  and  5.  page  3 :  "The  Secretary  shall,  so  far  as  practicable,  util- 
ize the  services  of  soldiers  for  such  purposes  "  that  the  Secretary 
would  not  use  the  services  of  engineers  and  men  like  that  who  had 
been  in  the  service,  but  would  take  those  who  are  now  in  the  service 
in  preference  to  them  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  don't  wish  to  be  taken  as  implying  that  that  would 
be  done  by  the  Interior  Department  or  by  any  department  which 
would  handle  it.  I  don't  wish  to  imply  that,  but  I  say  that  that 
section — we  would  like  an  answer  to  that — an  assurance,  some  kind 
of  an  assurance  that  this  favoritism  would  not  be  shown,  you  see. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  catch  your  point. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  That  is  the  idea. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well,  is  it  your  view  that  the  Secretary  should  be 
directed  positively  to  employ  the  soldiers  in  all  the  work — surveying, 
engineering,  and  electrical  work,  and  house  building,  and  all  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  It  is  our  idea  that  a  real  merit  system  should  prevail, 
regardless  of  enlisted  men,  officers,  or  whoever  it  is ;  but  a  real  merit 
system  should  prevail. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Mr.  Jeffries,  would  you  like  to  continue  to  make 
your  statement — to  make  a  complete  statement  and  then  answer  ques- 
tions ;  or  do  you  want  to  answer  them  as  you  go  along  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  That  is  at  the  pleasure  of  your  committee. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  just  wanted  to  know  what  your  idea  was. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  might  get  your  questions  into  the  record  first, 
Mr.  Jeffries,  so  we  will  have  them  in  consecutive  order  in  one  place. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Very  well  [reading]  : 

No.  2.  What  protection  has  the  purchaser  in  his  equity  in  the  land  in  case 
he  desires  to  dispose  of  same  prior  to  acquiring  title?  Has  not  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior  full  power  to  prevent  transfer  of  any  kind  whatsoever  without  the 
necessity  of  even  explaining  why  he  refuses  to  sanction  the  deal? 

No.  3.  Under  the  provisions  of  the  bill,  what  is  offered  in  the  way  of  assist- 
ance to  the  soldier  who  desires  to  acquire  and  develop  land  which  does  not 
happen  to  be  included  in  a  project  which  has  been  approved  and  acquired 
under  the  provisions  of  this  act? 

No.  4.  Does  this  act  admit  of  the  expenditure  of  any  portion  of  the  fund  for 
administrative  purposes  or  for  preliminary  investigations  or  the  making  of  sur- 
veys and  plans? 

No.  5.  WThat  assurance  have  we  that  in  the  work  of  improving  and  developing 
the  land  a  real  merit  system  under  which  ability,  application,  and  initiative 


696  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

shall  be  promoted  to  the  highest  degree  and  the  evils  of  political  and  other 
forms  of  patronage  be  minimized? 

No.  6.  Is  any  provision  made  whereby  the  counsel,  advice,  and  desires  of  the 
settlers  in  matters  affecting  the  policies  of  administration  as  to  projects  in 
which  they  are  directly  interested  may  be  availed  of,  and  whereby  those  most 
interested  may  be  sharers  in  the  responsibility  of  management  of  the  under- 
taking, through  the  exercise  of  a  stockholder's  vote  when  policies  are  to  be 
determined  ? 

No.  7.  After  Congress  has  appropriated  money  under  the  provisions  of  this 
act  what  supervisory  powers  has  it  over  its  expediture? 

No.  8.  Has  not  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  absolute  power  of  veto  as  to  any 
and  all  undertakings  or  operations  under  this  act? 

No.  9.  Is  it  not  entirely  possible  that  a  great  deal  of  favoritism  might  develop 
In  the  administering  of  this  act,  and  that  it  places  tremendous  power  in  the 
hands  of  a  few  political  appointees  who  are  far  removed  from  the  people  and 
not  directly  responsible  to  the  Congress? 

No.  10.  What  is  to  insure  an  equitable  distribution  of  the  funds  appropri- 
ated? [Applause.] 

Mr.  TILLMAN.  Did  you  have  any  assistance  or  suggestions  in  draft- 
ing this  questionnaire?  ' 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  As  stated,  I  have  prepared  this  list  of  questions  per- 
sonally from  the  conferences  I  have  had  with  soldiers. 

Mr.  GANDY.  In  this  connection  I  want  to  sav  that  Mr.  Jeffries 
came  to  me  voluntarily  yesterday  and  we  had  quite  an  extended 
discussion  of  it,  and  I  asked  him  to  go  back  and  put  into  writing  the 
questions  that  he  asked  of  me.  and  assured  him  of  an  opportunity  to 
be  heard,  and  that  is  the  result  of  it. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  We  are  deeply  indebted  to  this  soldier  for  putting 
up  questions  to  us  that  are  of  great  importance.  I  think  he  is  the 
best  witness  we  have  had. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  anything  further  to  state  in  your  open- 
ing statement,  Mr.  Jeffries? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  should  be  very  glad  to  take  these  matters  up  and 
have  any  of  the  members  ask  questions.  I  shall  be  glad  to  answrer 
as  best  I  am  able  any  questions  that  occur  to  you. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  through  with  your  opening  statement  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  GANDY.  Now,  I  want  to  ask,  Mr.  Chairman — you  are  familiar 
with  the  provisions  of  this  bill  that  is  before  the  committee,  are  you 
not? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  GANDY.  And  you  are  familiar  with  the  fact  that  it  contem- 
plates the  development  of  projects,  so  called  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  GANDY.  In  so  far  as  it  goes,  with  certain  safeguards  and 
amendments,  do  you  approve  the  bill  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  approve  of  the  purposes  of  the  bill  very  strongly ; 
yes,  sir — of  the  purposes. 

Mr.  GANDY.  Then  you  think  there  should  be  added  to  it  the  alter- 
native provision  of  individual  selection  and  assistance? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  GANDY.  You  are  familiar  with  the  South  Dakota  law? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  GANDY.  Do  you  think  that  some  alternative  along  that  line 
for  cooperation  with  the  States,  or  individual  selection,  should  be 
specifically  provided  for  ? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  697 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes;  and  I  have  some  definite  proposals  to  put 
before  this  committee  for  their  consideration,  whereby  I  think  the 
bill  might  be  strengthened  ancl  bettered,  and  whereby  I  think  that 
the  confidence  of  the  people  and  of  the  soldiers  in  the  bill,  which  is 
very  necessary  to  the  successful  consummation  of  the  purposes  of  the 
bill,  might  be  compelled,  where,  as  it  now  stands,  I  absolutely  know 
that  the  bill  is  viewed  with  suspicion  by  a  great  majority  of  the 
soldiers.  I  know  that. 

Mrs.  GANDY.  Now  proceed  with  your  suggestions. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  May  I  ask  you  before  you  do  that  what  you  mean 
by  the  suspicions  the  soldiers  have  toward  the  bill  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir;  I  will  say  that  there  is  a  very  unusual  state 
of  mind  among  the  soldiers,  produced  by  a  very  unusual  condition  of 
government  under  which  we  have  lived — existed — for  many  months, 
and  there  is  a  universal  lack  of  confidence  in  individual  and  depart- 
mental efficiency  and  integrity.  And  so  in  regard  to  the  distribu- 
tion— and  as  I  have  stated  before,  in  regard  to  the  proposition  of  the 
selection  of  the  help — the  doubt  arises  in  the  minds  of  these  men, 
and  it  is  expressed  among  themselves — that  is,  between  themselves 
where  they  speak  as  equals  and  are  equally  interested — a  doubt  as  to 
the  possibility  of  anything  governmental  ever  being  administered 
fairly  and  efficiently.  Now,  tnat  is  a  state  of  mind  in  the  Army  yet, 
and  it  continues  for  a  considerable  period  after  the  men  come  out, 
and  for  this  reason  they  do  view  with  suspicion  any  proposition  that 
comes  from  any  department  which  proposes  to  do  good  things  for 
the  soldiers,  because  they  are  afraid  there  are  strings  to  it.  That  is 
the  situation. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  What  do  you  attribute  that  to? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  The  despotic  authority  which  all  officers  have  in  the 
military  organization. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  You  mean  the  Regular  Army  or  the  National 
Guard? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES,  All  the  Army  was  the  same,  I  think. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Well,  you  said  awhile  ago  there  had  been  discrimi- 
nation. Did  you  mean  discrimination  for  /or  against  the  National 
Guard  in  forming  the  Regular  Army  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  don't  mean  between  the  different  units  in  the 
Army ;  I  mean  discrimination  against  the  enlisted  men  in  the  Army, 
and  by  .officers  of  higher  rank  against  officers  of  lower  rank,  including 
the  entire  Army,  all  of  it,  every  department  that  I  came  in  touch 
with,  sir. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Now  you  are  not  speaking  for  the  private.  You  are 
speaking  for  the  officers,  as  I  understand  it? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Enlisted  men  are  privates  and  noncommissioned 
officers. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Also  noncommissioned  officers? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  would  say,  sir,  that  there  is  in  our  military  system 
5i  wide  line  of  demarcation  between  the  enlisted  man  and  the  officer. 
The  assumption  is  all  the  way  through — and  it  is  carried  out — that 
the  enlisted  man  is  possessed  of  neither  honor,  intelligence,  nor 
ability,  and  that  the  officer  is  possessed  of  all  of  those  requisites  only 
to  a  degree  commensurate  with  his  rank. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I  agree  with  you  on  that,  sir.    I  don't  indorse  that. 


698  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Mr.  Jeffries,  of  course,  you  understand  the 
military  branch  of  the  Government  would  have  nothing  to  do  with 
administering  this  law,  and  if  you  are  familiar 

Mr.  RAKER  (interposing).  Now  I  would  be — 

The  CHAIRMAN  (interposing).  Just  wait  a  minute,  Judge.  He  is 
putting  a  question  to  the  witness. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  am  going  to  object  to  the  question  until  the  witness 
gets  through. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  He  said  he  was  through. 

Mr.  RAKER.  All  right;  I  withdraw  it. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  administration  of 
the  reclamation  law  by  the  Interior  Department? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  To  any  extent? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Well,  there  is  no  suggestion  that  there  is  any 
person  put  in  authority  there  that  was  not  equipped  for  the  position  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  am  not  making  any  implications,  sir.  I  am  stat- 
ing— trying  to  state  to  this  committee — the  actual  facts  of  the  state 
iof  mind  of  the  soldier,  and  I  want  to  say  to  this  committee,  when  the 
bill  is  enacted  by  this  Congress  it  must  be  in  such  shape  as  will  go 
the  very  farthest  possible  way  toward  compelling  the  confidence  of 
the  soldiers ;  toward  answering  these  questions  in  the  bill  and  leaving 
as  little  as  possible  of  these  various  questions  to  be  answered  by  the 
individual  act  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  or  any  other  individual 
head  of  the  department.  I  will  say  for  your  information  that  I  do 
know  a  great  deal  about  the  reclamation ;  that  I  was  a  member  of  the 
committee  that  helped  draw,  I  think,  the  first  draft  of  the  reclamation 
bill,  and  I  have  lived  a  long  time  in  that  country  out  where  they  have 
done  this  reclaiming,  and  I  am  personally  acquainted  with  Frederick 
H.  Newall,  who  was  the  first  director,  I  believe,  and  I  know  positively 
that  there  is  no  comparison  between  the  administration  of  the  Recla- 
mation and  the  Forest  Service  and  the  military  service,  but  a  great 
majority  of  these  men  whom  you  seek  to  satisfy  and  to  benefit  don't 
know  what  I  know.  They  have  these  doubts. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  don't  have  them  yourself? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Sir,  I  have  less  confidence  now  in  the  infallibility 
of  individuals  than  I  had  before  I  went  overseas. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  you  are  speaking  about  your  experience  in 
the  Army  and  I  understood  you  to  commend  Mr.  Newell  and  the 
Reclamation  Service. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  you  knew  yourself  about  the  Reclamation 
Service  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  There  is  no  comparison  between  them. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  the  boys  didn't  know,  and  they  naturally 
would  be  suspicious  from  their  Army  experience  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  According  to  your  viewpoint? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  you  do  not  criticize  the  Reclamation  Service 
yourself? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Absolutely  not.    It  is  a  grand  thing. 


HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS.  699 

Mr.  MAYS.  Then  your  criticism  awhile  ago  or  statement  to  the  ef- 
fect that  the  soldiers  very  generally  doubted  the  integrity  of  all  de- 
partments, was  directed  more  to  the  military  than  to  anything  else, 
was  it? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  think  it  is  induced  by  this  very  close  association 
with  the  Department  of  War ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MAYS.  And  their  experience  has  been  with  the  officers  in  the 
Army,  and  through  that  experience  they  have  become  suspicious  of 
the  whole  Military  Establishment?  Is  that  it? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Oh,  yes,  and  other  governmental  establishments. 

Mr.  MAYS.  And  what,  as  you  express  it  here,  the  soldier  wants  is 
an  assurance  that  the  military  organization  will  not  govern  the  ad- 
ministrative work  of  this  project,  of  this  bill. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Well,  they  want  more  assurance  than  that,  sir. 

Mr.  GANDY.  Let  me  put  a  question  right  there.  I  understand, 
then,  in  a  nutshell,  your  idea  is  that  just  as  much  should  be  made  defi- 
nitely certain  by  legislation  as  possible,  and  as  little  left  to  the  dis- 
cretion of  departmental  officers  as  possible? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Just  one  question  there.  I  get  it  that  you  voice  a  fear 
in  the  mind  o*f  the  soldier  that  this  repugnant  condition  that  you 
have  described  might  be  extended  into  the  administration  of  this 
law?  Is  that  it? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir.  Not  only  the  military  though — you  are 
asking  that  particular  question,  question  No.  5 :  "  What  insurance 
have  we  that  in  the  work  of  improving  and  developing  the  land,  a 
real  merit  system  under  which  ability,  application,  and  initiative 
shall  be  promoted  to  the  highest  degrees,  and  the  evils  of  political  and 
other  forms  of  patronage  minimized  ?  "  Now,  that  is  the  question. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  You  do  not  believe,  Mr.  Jeffries,  do  }'ou,  that 
there  is  any  politics  in  the  classified  civil  service?  And  all  of  these 
men  in  the  Reclamation  Service  are  appointed  under  civil  service. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  believe  that  there  is  a  great  deal  of  politics  in  the 
classified  civil  service. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Not  if  the  laws  are  properly  administered. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  believe  that  there  is  a  chance  for  a  great  deal  of 
reform  in  the  civil  service  before  it  is  ideal,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Jeffries,  I  doivt  know  just  wrhat  you  mean  by 
your  contention  that  the  merit  system  should  prevail  on  one  of  these 
projects.  Just  explain  what  you  have  in  mind. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  It  contemplates  the  employment  of  a  great  many 
soldiers,  and  you  see  I  am  an  engineer,  sir;  I  have  been  in  charge 
of  a  great  deal  of  work  for  a  great  many  years,  scattered  over  a 
considerable  territory,  and  always  when  you  start  to  accomplish  a 
work,  a  considerable  work,  the  first  consideration  is  the  securing  of 
funds,  the  appropriation.  Many  times  that  is  much  more  easily 
accomplished  than  the  next  very  necessary  step,  which  is  the  or- 
ganizing of  the  forces,  the  organizing  of  the  work.  In  the  organi/a- 
tion,  if  we  haven't  the  very  best  of  plans  and  regulations  governing 
the  organization  of  the  forces,  there  is  always  liable  to  creep  in  a 
favoritism  and  the  evils  of  political  and  other  forms  of  patronage. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Could  you  tell  us  right  there  how  you  would  organize 
the  forces  as  an  engineer,  for  one  of  these  projects,  in  your  own  way? 


700  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIEES. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Sir,  I  would  not  attempt  the  organization  alone. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well,  how  should  it  be  organized? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  It  should  be  organized  on  the  best  established  prin- 
ciples. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  are  those? 

Mr.  VAILE.  Pardon  me,  judge,  I  think  you  are  embarrassing  the 
witness  by  asking  him  to  state  a  general  plan.  He  might  state  how 
he  would  make  the  organization,  without  attempting  to  give  a  gen- 
eral plan. 

Mr.  RAKER.  He  has  in  his  head  a  general  idea  of  how  he  would 
amend  this  bill  or  place  it  so  that  just  what  he  is  desiring  would  be 
carried  out  in  the  organizing  of  a  force  on  one  of  these  projects,  say 
100,000  acres  in  some  States. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Well,  to  start  with,  sir,  I  will  tell  you  that  I  would 
seek  to  have  the  bill  so  drawn  that,  as  I  try  to  bring  out  here :  "  Where 
the  counsel,  advice  and  desires  of  the  settlers  in  matters  affecting 
the  policies  of  administration  as  to  projects  in  \vhich  they  are 
directly  interested  may  be  availed  of." 

I  would  make  it  as  democratic  as  possible.  If  you  have  the  time 
I  will  state  that  I  have  had  some  experience  in  matters  which  were 
carried  to  the  people  of  a  State,  and  that  are  of  great  similarity 
with  this;  that  is,  the  highway  construction  proposition  in  the  State 
of  Wisconsin.  And  I  will  say  there  that  we  got  appropriations 
ahead  of  a  proper  organization  for  the  handling  of  the  funds  and 
that  the  highway  commission  and  the  department  got  in  bad  with 
the  people  to  start  with,  because  we  didn't  show  the  high  degree  of 
efficiency  that  might  have  been  expected  in  the  expenditure  of  these 
funds  to  start  with;  and  so  a  rather  different  plan  was  taken  and  it 
was  carried  to  all  the  different  counties  of  the  State,  and  there  was 
a  division  of  responsibility  with  each  county,  and  then  into  districts, 
so  that  we  took  it  right  to  the  people  and  then  we  began  to  build 
up,  and  we  have  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin  a  magnificent  system,. 
very  strong.  Each  winter  we  have  a  road  school — the  last  two  I 
have  missed,  unfortunately — I  was  across  the  water — but  we  have 
a  road  school  which  is  attended  by  hundreds — six  or  seven  hundred 
of  the  people  who  are  interested  in  this  work,  and  it  has  proven  to 
our  satisfaction  that  the  democratic  system  of  administering  these 
public  works  is  the  only  safe,  sound,  and  efficient  system,  and  so  I 
would  like  to  suggest 

Mr.  GANDY  (intreposing).  You  use  that  word  in  its  broadest 
sense,  and  not  in  any  political  sense?  (Laughter.) 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  would  like  to  suggest  that  this  committee  consider 
the  proposition  in  case  you  pass  this  bill  authorizing  this  appro- 
priation, of  an  equitable  distribution  of  the  funds  provided  by  the 
act,  along  the  same  lines  as  the  distribution  of  the  Federal  aid  high- 
way fund.  That  is  distributed  to  the  different  States,  pro  rated  on 
a  basis  of  three  things:  one-third  determined  by  the  proportion  of 
post  roads  within  the  State,  I  believe;  one-third  according  to  the 
area,  and  one-third  on  population  or  valuation. 

Mr.  GANDY.  On  population. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  And  in  that  way  the  department,  the  United  States 
Office  of  Public  Roads  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  is  abso- 
lutely relieved  of  any  responsibility  in  apportioning  it,  and  they 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  701 

are  relieved  of  any  suspicion  as  to  favoritism  in  regard  to  the  appor- 
tioning of  these  funds. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Let  me  ask  you  a  question.  You  spoke  of 
the  highway  organization  of  Wisconsin  being  very  efficient.  Does 
politics  enter  into  the  organization  in  any  way  in  the  State  of  Wis- 
consin ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Very  little  at  the  present  time,  sir. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  If  they  can  keep  politics  out  of  the  organiza- 
tion in  "VVisconsin,  do  you  not  think  you  could  keep  it  out  of  the 
organization  of  the  Reclamation  Service  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  think  it  is  entirely  possible,  sir,  especially  in  the 
present  state  of  mind  of  the  American  people  and  the  returning 
soldiers,  because  they  desire  very  sincerely  that  this  political  pat- 
ronage be  absolutely  minimized.  They  desire  that  very  much  above 
all  else,  I  believe. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Sergeant,  hasn't  it  been  your  observation  that  the 
Reclamation  Service  during  the  17  years  that  it  has  been  in  existence 
it,  has  not  been  charged  with  being  controlled  by  political  favoritism, 
has  it? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Either  under  Republican  or  Democratic  administra- 
tion. Hasn't  it  gone  along  very  evenly  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  think  it  has. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Don't  you  know  that  one  reason  why  it  is  suggested 
that  the  Reclamation  Service  have  charge  of  this  is  because  of  their 
experience  in  reclamation  work  and  because  they  are  not  controlled 
and  have  not  been  controlled  by  politics?  I  don't  think  anybody 
knows  the  politics  of  anybody  in  there.  I  certainly  do  not,  and  I  do 
not  think  there  has  been  any — I  haven't  ever  heard  it  charged  in  the 
Western  States  that  politics  cut  any  figure  with  the  administration 
of  the  Reclamation  Service,  have  you  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Then  why  should  they  be  suspicious  about  the  Rec- 
lamation Service?  We  thought  if  there  was  any  department  or 
bureau  in  the  whole  Government  that  was  conducted  free  from 
politics  it  was  that  bureau. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  will  agree  with  that. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Another  thing,  sergeant,  you  have  thought  over  this 
thing  a  great  deal  and  very  deeply.  Have  you  got  any  concrete  sug- 
gestions to  offer  to  the  committee  as  to,  in  the  first  place,  what  we 
ought  to  do  for  the  soldier?  That  is  the  great  question,  what  should 
we  do  for  them  and  how  many  of  them,  and  that  is  what  this  com- 
mittee wants  to  do,  and  then  in  what  manner  we  should  do  it.  Now, 
can  you  give  us  briefly  and  concisely  your  ideas  about  that  in  a  con- 
structive way — not  in  the  way  of  criticism  of  what  we  have  got  here, 
but.  tell  us  what  we  ought  to  do.  Can  you  do  that  quickly  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  think  I  can. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Tell  us  in  the  first  place  what  ought  Uncle  Sam  or 
Congress  to  do  for  the  soldier;  secondly,  how  we  should  do  it? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  think  that  a  great  deal  can  be  done  by  the  enact- 
ment of  this  law  with  some  beneficial  changes  and  additions.  A  great 
deal  can  be  done. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Can  you  suggest  the  changes? 


702  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Just  give  them  to  us  for  our  constructive  aid.  That 
is  what  we  want. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  To  start  with,  this  proposition  of  equitable  dis- 
tribution  

Mr.  VAILE  (interposing).  Take  the  bill,  sergeant,  and  show  us 
just  where  you  would  amend  it. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Of  course,  he  can  hardly  go  through  the  bill.  Just 
give  us  your  general  ideas. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  The  matter  of  equitable  distribution  is  of  first  im- 
portance. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Now,  why?     In  what  way? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Along  the  same  lines. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Would  you  give  them  all  cash? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Oh,  I  don't  care  to  go  into  the  proposition  of  a  bonus 
to  the  soldiers  before  this  Public  Lands  Committee,  unless  you 
wish  it. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Well,  do  you  believe  in  giving  them  a  bonus  straight 
out? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Do  I? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  think  they  ought  to  all  have  a  bonus  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Absolutely;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  In  cash? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  $5,000  apiece? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  No. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  In  what  way? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Is  that  germane  to  this  question? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  may  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Certainly,  if  you  can,  because  we  want  to  know. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Well,  I  will  say  this  is  my  personal  opinion.  I 
think  that  almost  universally  the  enlisted  men  made  a  sacrifice,  made 
a  considerable  sacrifice,  a  financial  sacrifice,  as  well  as  other  sacri- 
fices in  the  service,  and  that  every  man  who  left  his  home  and  left 
his  business  and  left  his  ordinary  vocation,  and  went  into  a  camp 
and  then  returned  again,  that  he  lost  financially  out  of  proportion  to 
the  men  who  did  not  see  service.  So  I  think  that  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  does  owe— I  don't  think  that  $30  was  sufficient 
pay.  and  I  don't  think  the  emoluments  were  sufficient,  and  then  along 
that  line  I  would  say  this,  that  it  is  my  idea  that  a  just  settlement 
with  the  soldier  would  be  based  on  two  things;  that  is,  that  every 
man  who  volunteered  or  was  inducted — and  I  should  say  that  the 
volunteers  should  have  somewhere  near  an  even  break  anyway  in 
this — into  the  service,  that  they  should  be  allowed  by  this  Govern- 
ment, in  addition  to  their  regular  pay  which  was  provided,  a  fixed 
sum  to  cover  the  amount  which  might  be  considered  as  being  still  due 
them,  as  of  justice,  for  the  time  they  lost  and  the  losses  they 
sustained  going  into  the  service  and  coming  out — a  fixed  sum  to  cover 
that. 

Mr.  TAYLOI:.  Would  you  give  them  that  in  cash? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Absolutely. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  703 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Just  turn  it  over  to  them  and  let  them  blow  it  in. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir ;  let  them  blow  it  in ;  let  them  waste  it.  Yes, 
sir:  let  them  blow  it  in  for  anything  they  want  to.  My  God,  we 
went  all  through  the  war  with  "somebody  telling  us  what  we  could 
do  and  what  we  could  not  do.  Those  men  went  through  the  war 
and  fought  this  fight  to  win  it,  and  they  won  it ;  and  they  are  capa- 
ble— just  as  capable  as  some  of  the  rest  of  you  men  of  deciding 
what  to  do  with  those  few  dollars. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  How  much  cash  would  you  say  to  give  each  one  of 
them  I 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  If  I  had  the  say  so,  I  would  give  each  one  of  them 
$150,  every  man  of  them,  and  then  I  would  say  a  bonus  of  about  75 
cents,  six  bits,  for  every  day  which  he  served  in  the  Army.  I  think 
that  would  be  just  and  equitable.  The  man  who  served  18  months 
suffered  a  greater  loss,  made  a  greater  contribution  in  a  financial 
way.  And  now,  I  do  not  think  the  financial  contribution  should  be 
required  from  those  soldiers.  I  think  their  debt  of  patriotism,  and 
so  forth,  was  paid  by  the  dangerous  and  disagreeable  service  which 
they  rendered ;  but  they  nearly  all  came  back  broke. 

Mr,  TAYLOR.  Don't  you  think  if  we  save  them  all  that  in  money 
that  four  out  of  five  of  them  would  have  it  all  expended  in  some  way 
in  30  days'  or  90  days'  time  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  A  lot  of  them  would,  before  that. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  And  then  do  you  think  that  should  cancel  the  obliga- 
tion of  the  Government  to  help  those  boys  get  a  home  of  some  sort  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Xo,  sir;  I  do  not  think  that  it  should  ever  cancel 
that. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  But  they  should  be  allowed  to  do  whatever  they 
pleased  from  that  time  on? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Oh.  leave  it  to  them. 

Mi-.  TAYLOR.  To  do  whatever  they  please? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  If  you  leave  this  to  them,  and  they  get  this  money, 
they  will  make  a  great  deal  better  use  of  it  than'  if  you  folks  start 
in  to  tell  them  what  they  can  do  and  what  they  can"  not  do.  That 
can  not  be  done  with  the  kind  of  men  who  went  and  upset  the  greatest 
military  system  on  earth.  It  don't  work, 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Our  boys  are  very  similiir  in  characteristics  to  the 
Canadian  boys,  and  has  not  the  Canadian  Government  provided  for 
tlio  loaning  of  money  to  help  the  Canadian  boys  to  help  themselves, 
rather  than  turning  over  the  cash  without  any  string  on  it?  And 
don't  you  think  that  will  operate  to  build  up*  homes  and  families, 
better  than  giving  the  money  to  them  outright  to  spend  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Sir,  I  have  more  confidence  in  these  buck  soldiers 
than  maybe  you  have.  I  have  explicit  confidence  in  them.  A  few 
here  and  there  will  waste  some  money,  but  I  venture  to  say  some 
of  you  here  waste  money,  too.  There  is  a  free  American  privilege 
that  we  value  very.  very,  highly,  the  privilege  of  spending  a  nickel, 
a  dime,  or  a  dollar  as  we  damn  please.  And  as  far  as  that  paying 
the  debt  entirely.  I  do  not  figure  that  if  you  pass  this  bill,  or  pass 
if  in  the  most  efficient,  most  effective  manner  that  will  bring  the  most 
benefit  to  the  men,  a  lot  of  them  that  wish  to  avail  themselves  of  this. 
I  do  not  think  that  will  be  in  the  shape  of  a  bonus.  It  is  simply  a 
loan,  isn't  it?  It  is  all  to  be  paid  back?  Outside  of  that.  T  think 
133319—19  .  15 


704  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

this  country  owes  a  debt  to  each  individual  soldier,  bar  none.  I  do 
not  think  they  paid  him  anywhere  near  in  proportion  to  what  others 
were  paid.  I  know  they  did  not.  I  was  drawing  $3,600  a  year  my- 
self, and  I  enlisted  for  '$30  a  month.  But  that  is  all  right.  I  have 
one  lung  left  and  I  have  probably  20  or  30  years  to  live.  I  am  nearly 
40  now.  I  can  get  by ;  nearly  all  of  us  can.  God,  if  we  could  get 
through  what  existed  over  there,  we  can  here.  We"  do  not  ask  for 
anything  except  to  break  even,  for  a  square  deal.  We  do  not  ask 
for  $10  a  day  as  the  fellows  got  that  loafed  on  the  jobs;  but  it 
would  create  a  much  better  feeling  with  the  soldiers  if  they  got 
something  without  a  string  on  it. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  think  we  ought  to  just  scrap  this  bill  here, 
then,  and  just  make  a  straight  donation  in  cash  and  call  it  quit<  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Oh,  no,  sir. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Don't  you  honestly  believe  that  a  big  majority  of 
them  would  make  wise  use  of  that^noney  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  certainly  do.  God,  I  saw  them  make  wise  use  of 
the  few  pennies  and  the  few  francs  they  had.  They  made  wise  use 
of  that. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Sergeant,  would  a  $1,000  flat,  given  to  every  soldier 
who  would  use  that  as  a  part  purchase  for  a  home,  either  city,  urban, 
or  farm,  and  let  him  work  out  the  balance  in  his  own  way,  let  him 
select  his  home,  let  him  make  application  to  the  Government  to  buy 
it  for  him,  and  make  the  initial  payment  of  at  least  $1,000,  how  would 
that  suit  the  soldier?  Don't  you  think  he  would  be  satisfied  with 
that? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  No,  sir.  There  are  so  many  strings,  and  there  are 
many  sodliers,  sir,  who  do  not  want  to  buy  a  home  right  now.  Wo  do 
not  want  to  be  fastenend  down,  a  lot  of  us;  we  want  to  look  around  a 
little.  We  have  not  seen  this  United  States  at  all,  and  we  might  want 
to  spend  a  little  of  this  bonus  money  for  car  fare. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Let  me  ask  you  another  question:  For  such  of  them 
who  did  want  to  buy  a  home,  w^ould  you  think  that  would  bo  all 
right? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  think  that  would  be  fine. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  That  would  let  them  select  their  own  homes,  but  let  the 
Government  make  the  initial  payment? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  give  the  soldier  a  chance  to  work  out  the  balance  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  For  such  of  them  as  wanted  to  buy  a  home,  you  think 
that  would  be  satisfactory  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir;  but  I  doubt  if  that  would  be  the  very  best 
plan.  I  think  it  would  be  a  very  good  plan,  but  I  doubt  if  it  would 
be  the  best  plan. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  For  such  soldiers  that  did  not  desire  to  enter  into  this 
soldier-colony  plan  contemplated  by  this  bill,  what  would  you  think 
about  letting  him  select  a  home  in  a  community  in  which  he  desires 
to  live,  and  make  him  a  straight-out  loan  through  the  Federal  Farm 
Loan  Bank  sufficient  to  buy  that  home  and  let  him  pay  it  back  at  a 
low  rate  of  interest  over  a  period  of  40  years  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  think  that  can  be  incorporated  in  this  bill;  that 
option.  I  think  that  would  give — you  see  I  lost  a  lot  of  the  words  I 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  705 

had  when  I  went  over,  and  I  got  a  lot  of  new  ones  that  are  not  appro- 
priate, but  that  would  give  to  the  proposition  an  internal  competition 
which  is  very  necessary:  that  is.  projects  could  be  attempted  and  car- 
ried through  within  the  States,  and  then  in  competition  with  that 
would  be  the  proposition  of  the  individual's  selection.  That  would 
be  very  fine  competition. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Let  me  ask  you  this  question,  then.  I  do  not  think 
we  are  so  far  apart.  You  can  conceive,  from  the  knowledge  you 
have  of  the  West,  where  pretty  nearly  this  exact  plan  would  be 
applicable  in  those  12  or  15  Western  States  with  public  land  avail- 
able. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  As  it  is  right  now? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Well,  subject  to  modifications. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Now,  couldn't  we  as  a  practical  proposition — I  am 
asking  this  solely  for  information  for  myself  and  the  benefit  of  the 
committee;  I  think  we  have  a  lot  in  common  with  these  soldiers  in 
this  line,  and  we  are  trying  to  get  their  viewpoint — couldn't  the  good 
features  in  this  bill  be  preserved,  with  such  modifications  and 
changes  as  would  make  it  acceptable  to  the  States  where  it  is  feasible, 
and  then  couldn't  we  insert  an  alternative  proposition  in  this  legis- 
lation, along  the  line  I  have  suggested,  and  allow  them  to  make  indi- 
vidual applications  for  loans  to  buy  individual  tracts  in  States  where 
they  want  to  locate?  Wouldn't  that  be  more  satisfactory  to  the  sol- 
diers, and  would  not  not  reach  a  larger  number? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Absolutely.  I  think  this  distribution  could  be  pro- 
vided by  the  act  so  that  a  certain  amount  is  available  for  each  State — 
I  think  that  is  very  important — and  a  fixed  amount,  so  that  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Interior  is  not  subject  to  criticism  for  the  manner  of 
distribution.  Then  I  think  the  bill  should  require  that  a  department 
be  created,  or  some  department  already  in  existence,  within  the 
State  to  be  charged  with  the  responsibility  of  administering  this  fund 
within  the  State  under  the  supervision  and  in  cooperation  with  the 
Federal  department — with  the  Department  of  Interior.  I  think 
that  is  entirely  practicable,  and  that  that  would  bring  it  much 
closer  to  the  people.  And  then  include  the  two  plans,  the  plan  of 
the  project  and  always  the  opportunity  of  individual  selection.  I 
want  to  say  that  that  thing  is  more  important  to  the  soldiers,  much 
more  so  than  it  ever  was  oefore — this  proposition  of  making  indi- 
vidual selections  and  using  your  own  judgment. 

It  is  very  repugnant  to  the  soldier  to  think  of  being  forcibly  re- 
quired to  go  in  a  cantonment  or  a  project — and  that  is  the  way  it  looks 
to  them,  where  he  is  hedged  in  here  like  this:  This  is  No.  1,  Xo.  2, 
No.  3,  and  Xo.  4,  and  maybe  a  little  later  on.  when  children  are  born, 
they  will  put  an  aluminum  dog  tag  on  their  necks,  and  that  is  their 
number.  And  I  have  heard  this  ventured  many  times.  And  then 
they  will  build  a  certain  kind  of  church  on  that  project,  and  you  don't 
have  any  chance  to  fuss  around  like  you  fellows  here  do.  and  enjoy 
that,  and  out  of  it  comes  great  good.  '  But  we  have  no  chance  to  fuss 
about  what  kind  of  a  church,  what  kind  of  a  school,  or  what  kind  of 
a  seminary  we  thought  ought  to  be  provided.  There  are  a  lot  of 
fellows  that  want  to  shift  that  responsibility.  We  let  this  depart- 
ment that  is  all  wise  over  here  furnish  us  plans  over  there  and  the 


706  HOMES   FOE  SOLDIERS. 

plans  did  not  lit  at  all;  they  absolutely  did  not  fit  at  all.  Every 
time  we  got  those  plans  and  had  to  operate  tinder  them  it  was 
suicide,  and  we  always  dodged  those  plans.  And  so  we  are  afraid 
of  this  little  model  community,  but  while  we  would  like  to  have 
them  built  we  would  like  to  look  over  the  plans  and  see  if  they  are 
all  right.  But  over  there  we  were  not  allowed  to  pick  out  the  mud- 
hole  in  which  to  lie  down,  but  we  were  lined  up  in  the  Argonne, 
company  front,  and  we  would  strike  shell  holes  as  big  as  this  little 
table,  and  we  were  supposed  to  pitch  our  tents  in  a  straight  line  on 
the  company  front.  We  would  rather  have  picked  a  place  a  little 
out  of  the  water,  if  possible.  And  so  that  is  very  important  right 
now  that  maybe  you  do  trust  a  little  bit  to  the  soldiers.  Suppose 
&  few  of  them  do  spend  this  money  ?  It  does  not  go  out  of  existence. 
Somebody  else  will  get  it.  They  do  not  burn  it  up  lighting  ciga- 
rettes, and  they  will  get  a  little  experience  in  that  way  and  they  are 
satisfied.  And  that  is  the  main  thing. 

Mr.  WHITE.  And,  by  the  same  token,  you  would  trust  a  little  bit, 
then,  the  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  of  soldier  boys  who  have 
had  experience  in  practical  farming  that  want  to  make  individual 
selections  themselves  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  would  say  that  they  would  use  the  very  best  judg- 
ment, equivalent  to  that  of  any  bunch  of  men  that  I  have  ever  seen. 
I  am  at  ease  in  addressing  you  men.  You  men  are  of  very  high 
caliber,  I  recognize;  but  when  I  talk  to  the  doughboys,  who  have 
pondered  deeply  on  these  subjects  and  have  gone  right  down  to  bed- 
rock, I  feel  the  necessity  of  making  my  supreme  effort  to  interest 
them  and  hold  their  attention;  they  are  so  keen,  and  so  smart;  they 
do  not  have  to  have  somebody  to  look  out  for  them,  look  after 
their  quarters,  you  know,  for  fear  they  will  waste  them,  and  there 
will  be  this  dissatisfaction  as  long  as  Congress  and  the  people  of  this 
country  take  that  attitude. 

Mr.  'NICHOLS.  In  connection  with  your  statement  as  to  a  soldier 
being  allowed  to  do  as  he  chose  in  this  matter,  I  will  call  your  at- 
tention to  this  language,  to  a  sentence  in  this  bill :  The  Secretary 
shall  make  regulations,  general  in  character  or  applicable  to  the 
specific  projects,  as  to  the  residence  and  cultivation,  with  a  view  to 
cariying  out  the  purpose  of  making  the  soldier  settlements  the  per- 
manent homes  of  the  soldier  purchaser.  What  do  you  think  of  that? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  think  that  is  all  right  as  applied  to  the  project. 
The  project  is  the  community  idea,  and  certain  ideas  must  be  ob- 
served and  carried  out  whereby  cooperation  can  be  compelled.  But 
I  think  there  should  be  the  option  always,  so  that  a  man — for  in- 
stance, in  the  Army,  you  know,  there  was  no  option;  you  see.  you 
had  no  choice.  Only  the  officers  had  an  option.  You  know  that 
when  you  went  up  to  the  front,  the  enlisted  man  had  no  option;  they 
went  where  they  were  told.  But  there  were  a  lot  of  options  among 
the,  officers,  little  things  that  would  happen,  you  know;  and  that  was 
fine  for  them,  and  most  of  them  are  a  lot  better  satisfied  than  the 
enlisted  men.  And  in  this  I  can  conceive  of  the  necessity  for  great 
supervisory  powers  in  order  to  make  successful  these  projects.  I 
think  it  lias  been  necessary  in  the  reclamation  projects  because  if 
they  allow  of  certain  internal  troubles  and  strikes,  you  know,  and 
difl'creiKvs  of  opinion,  etc..  it  might  defeat  the  purpose  of  the  entire 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  707 

project.  And  there  would  be  no  objection  to  that  if  the  man  were 
a  free  agent  in  choosing  between  a  piece  of  land  in  a  project  and  a 
piece  of  land  which  he  selected  elsewhere. 

Xow,  I  will  say  another  thing,  that  when  the  man  himself  goes  and 
makes  a  selection,  he  has  done  the  thing  that  the  Americans  only, 
I  believe,  did  over  there — he  has  challenged  the  world  on  that  propo- 
sition, you  see;  he  is  bound  by  his  choice  either  to  make  that  suc- 
ceed or  to  show  that  he  was  wrong,  and  he  has  an  especial  interest 
and  an  especial  responsibility  in  the  proposition  which  he  himself 
selects.  Hut  that  is  not  the  case  in  regard  to  projects  to  any  con- 
siderable degree,  because  the  project  at  the  best  is  controlled  by  a 
group  and  not  by  individuals,  and  it  is  easy  to  pass  the  buck  to  shift 
the  responsibility.  And  we  have  seen  that  done. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Jeffries,  you  spoke  a  while  ago  about  the  pay- 
ment of  $150  as  a  bonus  and  the  sum  of  75  cents  per  day  while  they 
were  in  the  service. 

Mi1.  JEFFRIES.   Yes.  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  mean  that  to  be  in  lieu  of  any  land  plan? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Why,  absolutely  not.  I  think  that  much  money,  at 
least  that  much  money  in  cash,  is  due  these  soldiers. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Do  you  think  they  would  be  satisfied  with  that? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  A  great  many  would  be.  Now,  you  men  are  Mem- 
i  ers  of  Congress,  and  I  will  tell  you  what  I  believe — 

Mr.  SMITH.  Do  you  think  the  officers  should  be  included? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  hold  no  brief  for  the  officers.  They  had  many, 
many  privileges  that  the  enlisted  man  did  not  have. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Is  it  not  true.  Mr.  Jeffries,  that  a  great  many  officers 
went  in  the  service,  and  some  remained  only  a  few  months  before  the 
armistice  was  signed  and  some  only  a  few  weeks,  and  they  spent  four, 
five,  or  six  hundred  dollars  for  uniforms,  and  the  folks  back  home 
had  to  help  them  to  pay  for  them? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  belieVe  that. 

Mr.  SMITH.  And  that  many  officers  in  civil  life  made  a  great  finan- 
cial sacrifice,  as  great  as  many  of  the  privates? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Of  course,  in  that  case  it  was  different;  but  a  great 
many  of  the  officers  were  war  profiteers — a  great  many. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  think  that  may  be  true. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  But  the  enlisted  men  did  not;  they  were  no  war 
profiteers. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  your  opinion,  what,  percentage  of  the  men 
would  avail  themselves  of  the  farm  plan? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  It  would  depend  very  materially  on  the  confidence 
that  is  inspired  in  the  men  in  the  practicability  and  its  freedom  from 
thi'-r  objections.  I  think  there  would  be  a  great  many. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  would  be  your  idea  of  the  percentage  of 
those  that  would  avail  themselves,  assuming  the  plan  was  a  good 
plan  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  am  not  in  a  position  to  fix  a  percentage. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Very  roughly;  just  approximately. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  would  say  that  out  of  the  A.  E.  F.  that  there  would 
be  100.000  men  at  least. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  One  hundred  thousand? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir ;  from  the  2,000.000  that  were  overseas. 


708  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No  more  than  100,000? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  say  at  the  least. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  At  the  least? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  say  100,000  or  200,000? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  said  iOO,000  of  the  2,000,000  that  were  overseas.  I 
think,  at  the  very  least,  there  would  be  that  many  who  would  feel 
the  necessity  and  the  desire  both ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Mr.  Jeffries,  have  they  become  conversant  with  this 
bill  over  there  through  any  agency  over  there?  Has  anyone  sought 
to  explain  to  them  what  this  land  bill  was  over  there,  and  how  gen- 
erally do  they  know  about  it? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  A  great  many  have  explained,  but  they  know  less 
about  it  after  it  has  been  explained  than  they  do  if  it  has  not  been 
explained. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  percentage  of  the  men  over  there  had  any  idea, 
do  you  think,  what  this  bill  really  provided  for  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  No  percentage  at  all. 

Maj.  BRADY.  I  do  not  believe  officially  the  men  know  anything 
about  it  at  all.  The  only  way  I  got  any  information  was  from  the 
Paris-New  York  Herald,  and  I  showed  that  to  a  lot  of  my  own  men. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  will  say  this,  that  they  have  been  very  keenly  in- 
terested, and  what  they  have  asked  about  more  than  anything  else 
was  of  the  free  homestead  land  and  any  preferential  right  as  to 
entry  under  the  existing  laws  that  soldiers  would  have.  A  great 
many  have  turned  their  attention  toward  the  Western  States,  and. 
from  various  sources,  they  have  just  conceived  the  idea  that  Congress 
would  undoubtedly  give  a  preferential  right  to  ex-soldiers.  Now,  as 
regards  this  Lane  plan,  this  plan  of  creating  a  new  thing  entirely, 
their  information  is  very,  very  incomplete.  And  I  will  say,  as  I  said 
at  first,  that  the  general — well,  I  have  lost  my  vocabulary;  I  know 
what  I  want  to  say — that  the  inclination  is  to  view  it  with  doubt. 
And  the  general  statements  that  will  be  made  among  the  men  are 
that  it  will  provide  a  bunch  of  good  jobs  for  fellows  that  see  them 
first  and  are  close  up  to  the  throne,  and  the  like  of  that.  That  is  very, 
very  common  conversation.  And  there  is  that  fear  and  suspicion 
among  the  enlisted  men. 

Mr.  MATS.  Are  you  giving  now  your  suspicions  or  the  suspicions 
of  the  Army  men  generally  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  have-  stated  that  this  is  common  conversation 
among  the  men. 

Mr.  MATS.  You  have  had  opportunities  to  consult  with  vast  num- 
bers of  soldiers  on  this? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  have,  sir. 

Mr.  MATS.  And  you  have  taken  advantage  of  that? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Oh,  yes,  sir.  I  did  not  smoke  any  cigarettes  while 
I  was  over  there ;  I  was  busy  many  hundreds  of  extra  hours,  writing 
for  the  regiment,  and  I  wrote  to  the  States  here,  and  I  have  for  many 
years  always  been  seeking  diligently  to  find  out  what  people  think. 

Mr.  MATS.  And  you  have  explained  this  bill  to  a  great  number. 
this  plan? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  MATS.  I  thought  you  said  you  had. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  709 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  No,  sir.  I  did  not  have  any  complete  knowledge  of 
this  until  I  came  back  here  and  went  to  the  Secretary's  office  to  get 
some  circulars  and  books,  and  so  forth. 

Mr.  MATS.  When  you  gave  the  10  questions  that  occurred  to  the 
soldiers,  then,  you  were  giving  the  questions  that  occurred  to  you 
rather  than  to  the  soldiers? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir ;  questions  that  have  been  brought  up  many 
times  in  talking  to  the  soldiers  themselves. 

Mr.  MAYS.  I  thought  you  did  not  talk  to  them  about  this  bill  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  You  asked  if  I  explained  this  particular  bill. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Oh,  you  explained  the  plan? 

Mr.  SNELL.  You  were  talking  about  the  general  legislation? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  was  talking  about  the  general  legislation ;  yes,  sir 

Mr.  MAYS.  And  you  find  the  men  strongly  in  favor  of  some  general 
legislation  of  this  character? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Oh,  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MAYS.  They  believe  they  ought  to  have  opportunities  of  this 
sort,  and  some  bill  that  would  afford  it? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MAYS.  And  your  objections  to  the  bill  go  more  to  the  details 
and  administrative  features  and  possibilities  of  abuse? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Of  course  we  all  recognize  that  it  would  be  impossi- 
ble to  compensate  these  soldiers  to  the  full  extent  for  the  sacrifices 
they  have  made;  but  have  you  estimated  about  how  much  it  would 
cost  to  follow  out  the  plan  you  suggest?  For  instance,  $150  bonus, 
and  then  75  cents  a  day  for  each  day  they  served,  assuming  on  the 
average  they  served  atiout  a  year,  and  taking  the  4,000,000  in  the 
service. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  If  they  do  not  get  this  million  out  faster  than  they 
have  been  doing  it  it  is  going  to  run  the  average  up,  too. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Taking  it  on  the  average,  that  would  be  about  $515 
apiece  for  each  of  the  4,000,000  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SMITH.  That  would  be  about  $2,000,000,000? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mt.  NICHOLS.  That,  Mr.  Jeffries,  would  take  care  of  all  the  sol- 
diers ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes;  I  think  it  should  be  very  equal  to  all  to  par- 
ticipate. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  not  to  be  in  lieu  of  the  land  clause? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Absolutely  not. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  know  this  bill  authorizes  an  appropriation  of 
$500.000,000,  and  that  it  has  been  stated  before  the  committee  here 
that  it  would  not,  probably,  provide  for  any  more  than  100,000  of  the 
whole  Army  and  Navy.  Your  idea  is,  I  take  it,  that  something 
should  be  done  by  Congress  in  an  equitable  way,  "as  you  say,  so  that 
every  soldier,  irrespective  of  whether  he  desired  to  go  on  a  farm  or 
do  something  else,  should  be  aided  by  the  Government? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Oh,  yes ;  absolutely.' 

Mr.  VAILE.  Just  one  question,  sergeant:  Would  you  regard  the 
fact  that  different  kinds  of  land  is  contemplated  in  this  bill  an  ob- 
jection to  the  plan? 


710  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Absolutely  not. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Your  experience  "with  the  Reclamation  Service  would 
lead  you  to  believe  that  that  was  an  advantage  rather  than  a  disad- 
vantage, wouldn't  it? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir.  I  would  consider  that  the  present  reclama- 
tion proposition,  the  present  Reclamation  Service  is  probably  able 
and  is  progressing  along  the  lines  of  taking  care  of  great  dispro- 
portionate areas  of  land  in  the  West,  and  the  Western  States  as  it 
now  stands,  and  that  an  equitable  distribution,  what  I  would  call 
an  equitable  distribution  to  the  States,  would  probably  be  based  on 
the  number  of  soldiers  (because  they  say  it  is  primarily  for  the  sol- 
diers) that  each  State  furnished.  Now,  then,  in  the  State  in  which 
I  live  now,  Wisconsin,  and  the  State  in  which  I  lived  for  25  years, 
South  Dakota,  they  have  a  greater  area  or  proportion  of  land  which 
would  be  reclaimed  undoubtedly  than  some  of  the  other  States.  The 
Reclamation  Service  is  working  in  those  States  on  that,  and  that  does 
not  need  to  be  included  in  this.  This  bill  does  not  Deed  to  be  framed 
for  the  purpose  of  supplanting  the  proposition  of  reclaiming  tracts 
of  land  in  the  West,  which  can  continue  on  its  own  merits. 

Mr.  VAILE.  And  while  you  would  like  to  go  and  select  lands  there 
in  Wisconsin  if  you  saw  fit,  on  the  other  hand  you  would  not  like  to 
be  tied  down  to  selecting  land  only  in  Wisconsin  ? 
Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Absolutely  not. 

Mr.  BEXHAM.  What,  in  your  judgment,  would  be  the  attitude  of 
the  rank  and  file  of  the  soldier  toward  the  project,  of  having  the  Gov- 
ernment make  the  improvements  as  this  bill  presupposes,  inasmuch  as 
the  soldier  is  to  be  called  upon  finally  to  pay  the  bills  ?  What  would 
be  the  attitude  of  the  rank  and  file  of  the  soldiers  toward  having 
those  improvements  made  by  the  Government? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  In  the  matter  of  projects,  I  think  the  rank  and  file 
would  consider  that  a  necessity. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  did  not  mean  that.  But  take  the  farm  that  is  to  be 
turned  over  to  the  soldier,  do  you  think  he  would  prefer  himself  to  do 
the  improving,  or  have  the  Government  do  it  for  him ;  that  is,  inas- 
much as  he  has  to  pay  the  bills  in  either  case? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  surely  think  that  in  the  majority  of  cases  the  sol- 
dier would  prefer  to  do  his  own  improving  in  his  own  way,  on  his 
own  time,  and  to  secure  financial  aid. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Do  you  make  any  distinction  between  different  stages 
of  improvement?  Do  you  think  that  it  would  be  advisable  for  the 
Government  to  first  put  the  project  in  shape  for  cultivation,  and  their 
let  the  soldier  on  his  own  means  and  on  his  own  time,  proceed  with 
the  cultivation  and  further  improvement  as  he  sees  fit?  Or  do  you 
think  the  soldier  should  undertake  individually  to  put  the  land  in  its 
first  original  shape  for  cultivation? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Of  course,  that  is  going  into  details.  I  think  that 
should  be  governed  through  these  boards  which  are  established  in  the 
various  States  and  in  cooperation  with  the  department.  For  instance, 
there  are  many  different  classes  of  crops ;  some  land  might  be  fruit 
land. 

Mr.  VAILE.  You  think,  as  I  get  your  viewpoint,  that  it  would  be 
wise,  and  in  many  cases  necessary,  for  the  initial  putting  of  the  land 
in  shape  to  be  done  by  the  Government,  or  by  the  State  and  National 
Government  together? 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  711 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  In  projects,  absolutely ;  yes,  sir.  And  I  wuold  like  to 
say  that  if  the  impression  were  given  out  that  if  this  land  bill  would 
be*  in  lieu  of  any  settlement,  any  bonus  to  the  soldiers  as  a  whole,  that 
this  land  bill  would  be  very,  very  unpopular.  Now,  I  can  tell  you 
that;  there  is  no  question  about  that,  no  matter  what  anyone  hears. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Most  of  them  want  the  coin? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Absolutely  they  do. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  take  it  the  soldiers  are  not  satisfied  with  the  $60? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  No,  sir;  absolutely  not.  That  is  pay  for  six  days* 
work  in  the  shipyards,  whether  they  work  or  not. 

Just  before  I  enlisted,  a  very  close  friend  of  mine,  Henry  Dietz, 
who  is  a  brother  of  the  Dietz  of  Cameron  Dam  fame — and  I  liked 
that  man — who  has  several  big  sons  who  had  been  in  the  Army;  his 
father  came  from  Germany,  but  he  is  a  big,  strong  American — he 
came  to  me  and  he  said.  *'  Hugh,  I  try  to  see  this  thing  fairly,  but  it 
looks  to  me  as  if  this  is  a  fight  between  England  and  Germany,''  and 
he  say>.  "  now,  it  is  going  to  cost  this-  country  " — and  he  went  on  to 
tell  how  much  it  would  cos^,  how  much  it  had  cost  already,  and  how 
much  it  was  going  to  cost.  I  said,  "Dietz,  honestly  that  doesn't 
interest  me;  l7lon't  care  a  damn  what  it  is  going  to  cost;  it  may  cost 
me  my  life,  but  I  am  going  to  go,  and  so  this  business  of  how  many 
millions  and  billions  it  is  going  to  cost  doesn't  make  any  difference, 
because  if  it  did  we  would  not  be  fit  to  live  in  this  kind  of  a 
country."'  And  so  we  went  over  there,  and  we  did  not  count  the  cost. 
You  did  not  count  the  cost  when  you  were  buying  the  other  things — 
the  cannon,  the  tools,  and  labor  here — you  did  not  count  the  cost. 
And  since  I  have  returned  here  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  has 
published  a  statement  in  all  of  the  daily  papers,  over  his  signature,  in 
which  he  said  there  were  still  1,500.000  soldiers  overseas,  and  that 
the  people  should  buy  Victory  bonds  to  get  them  home.  They  bought 
the  bonds.  That  was  $4.500.000,000.  Now,  really,  we  are  not  masters 
of  mathematics;  we  are  just  engineers,  and  farmers,  and  like  of  that, 
but  it  appears  to  us  that  about  $100,000,000  would  have  brought  the 
soldiers  home  all  right,  first  class,  each  one  traveling  on  his  own 
hook.  One  hundred  million ;  and  there  was  $4,500,000,000  raised  under 
this  appeal  to  the  country,  and  so  we  are  not  so  dense  as  not  to  see 
that.  And  then  the  next  day  the  Secretary  of  War  published  an  in- 
terview in  all  the  papers  in*  which  he  is  quoted  as  having  said  that 
the  one-millionth  man  would  embark  for  home  the  next  week.  Now, 
there  were  only  1,950.000  over  there  when  the  armistice  was  signed. 
The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  says  1,500,000  are  over  there  yet,  and 
the  Secretary  of  War  says  the  millionth  man  will  embark  next  week. 
There  is  a  "wide  disparagement  of  statements.  But  even  if  it  did  take 
$4,500,000,000  to  bring  those  men  home,  the  people  of  this  country 
would  willingly  pay  that  $1,500.000,000,  and  honestly  the  soldiers  are 
going  to  help  to  pay  all  of  this. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Wasn't  there  some  use  for  that  money  other  than  for 
transportation  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Oh;  yes ;  presumably. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Just  when  did  you  get  back  from  France? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  The  22d  of  March  I  landed  in  Philadelphia. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  were  over  there  how  long? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  A  year,  lacking  eight  days. 


712  HOMES   FOK  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  were  over  there  at  the  Argonne  Forest? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  was  in  the  Argonne  Forest. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  in  Balleau  Woods? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  was  not  in  Balleau  Woods ;  I  was  back  of  Balleau 
Woods. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  your  business  is  engineering? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  have  you  been  doing  since  you  came  back  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Since  I  came  back? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Well,  I  have  answered  a  very  close  lot  of  questions 
about  what  I  have  been  doing. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  mean  since  you  have  been  discharged.  This  is  just 
so  the  committee  will  have  an  idea  of  what  you  have  been  doing. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  was  discharged  on  the  4th  of  April  at  Camp  Dix. 
I  came  here  to  Washington  to  .confer  with  the  Acting  Director  of  the 
United  States  Office  of  Public  Roads  in  regard  to  employment.  I 
was  on  the  eligible  list  of  the  civil  service  as  a  highway  engineer, 
United  States  Office  of  Public  Roads.  But  my  lungs  have  been 
affected  by  some  gas  I  got  in  the  Argonne,  and  I  thought  I  would 
have  to  go  out  in  the  mountains  for  a  few  months,  and  I  made  ar- 
rangements to  go  to  work  out  there  from  the  Denver  office,  on  high- 
way construction  in  the  national  forests.  And  then  I  went  to  my 
home  at  Danbury,  Wis.,  and  got  acquainted  with  my  family — I  have 
a  wife  and  four  children — and  I  had  promised  all  of  the  men  of  my 
company,  most  of  the  men  in  the  battalion  over  in  France,  when  I  left 
them,  that  immediately  upon  arriving  home,  if  the  regiment  was  not 
yet  home,  that  I  would  come  to  Washington  and  do  everything  in 
my  power  to  secure  the  release  of  my  fellow  camp  mate,  John  F. 
Hinkley,  who  was  court-martialed  over  on  the  Lorraine  front,  and 
who  had  a  wife  and  five  children  absolutely  dependent  on  the  allow- 
ance and  the  allotment  which  this  wife  and  children  were  to  get 
from  the  Government.  On  the  morning  of  the  4th  of  July  over  there 
we  had  placed  a  big  barrage  on  the  German  line,  and  AVC  were  on  the 
front  from  3  o'clock  in  the  morning,  and  we  stood  by  all  clay,  so  it 
made  a  long  day  of  it,  and  on  the  morning  of  the  5th  of  July  this 
man  had  asked  the  captain  of  the  company  for  a  pass  to  go  to  a 
detachment  nearby — we  had  four  detachments  covering  the  entire 
front  of  that  division — 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  know  that  we  want  to  go  into  the  merits 
of  that. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  only  thing  I  wanted  to  see,  Mr.  Jeffries,  is  if  you 
are  in  the  employee  of  the  Government  now  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  am  not. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Would  not  the  Road  Administration  employ  you? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir;  they  would. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  didn't  you  go  into  the  service? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  are  you  doing  now,  just  in  a  few  words? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  am  president  of  this  American  Military  Reform 
Association. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  When  was  that  organized? 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  713 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  can  not  give  you  the  exact  date.  It  was  just  a 
short  time  ago. 

Mr.  -TAYLOR.  Where  are  its  headquarters  ? 

Mi1.  JEFFRIES.  Washington,  D.  C. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Do  they  pay  the  officers  a  salary  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  How  much  do  you  get  out  of  it? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Well,  I  get  $7,500  a  year. 

Mr.  MAYS.  What  are  the  purposes  of  that  organization? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Do  you  wish  to  put  them  in  the  record?  They  are 
in  the  Congressional' Record. 

Mr.  MAYS.  They  are  already? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MAYS.  This  is  to  reform  the  militar}'  organization? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  It  is  to  secure  some  reforms. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  who  is  paying  for  this  organization,  the  boys 
themselves  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Absolutely ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  just  in  a  few  words,  it  is  not  really  applicable 
to  this — 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  am  very  glad  to  have  you  bring  it  out,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  There  is  a  general  feeling  of  the  private  soldier — 
there  is  quite  a  feeling  of  the  private  soldier,  against  the  officers 
generally,  is  there  not  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  that  exists  with  practically  all  of  the  boys  as 
against  generally  all  of  the  officers? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir;  practically. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Because  of  the  rules  and  regulations? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  The  caste  system  does  not  fit. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  is  that? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  The  cast  system  does  not  fit ;  it  does  not  work  out. 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  does  not  fit  the  American  man  ? 

Mi1.  JEFFRIES.  Absolutely  not. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  do  not  want  to  go  any  further  into  that  now;  I 
want  to  go  on  the  bill ;  who  were  the  other  officers  of  the  organization, 
beside  yourself?  You  are  president,  you  say. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  who  is  the  vice  president  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  The  vice  president  has  not  yet  been  selected. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  have  you  a  counsel? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir;  an  executive  committee. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Give  the  counsel's  name,  will  you  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  You  mean  legal  counsel? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes;  Frank  Warrick. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Where  does  he  live  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  In  Washington,  I  believe,  but  I  am  not  sure. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Was  he  in  the  service  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  He  is  just  a  lawyer  and  did  not  go  in  the  service  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  he  is  acting  as  counsel  now  of  this  organization? 


714'  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir;  we  have  an  assistant  counsel,  too. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  is  his  name? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  David  Pelton  Moore. 

Mr.  EAKER.  What  is  his  position?  He  did  not  go  in  the  service 
either,  did  he? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  what  salary  do  you  pay  those  two  men  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  The  salary  has  not  been  fixed. 

Mr.  RAKER.  How  many  constitute  the  executive  committee? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Three. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Who  are  they? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Myself,  George  Grojean — 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  the  other  man's  name  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  John  F.  Giles. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Were  the  latter  two  in  the  service? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Are  they  here  in  Washington? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MAYS.  If  you  hold  that  job  some  time,  you  will  make  up  what 
you  lost  financially  in  the  service,  won't  you  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  might;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  VAILE.  You  will  probably  earn  all  of  your  salary  before  you 
get  through  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Absolutely ;  we  have  to  to  get  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  When  was  this  organization  formed  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  haven't  the  date. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Approximately.     Just  give  approximately  the  date. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  A  month  or  three  months  ago  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Oh,  no;  I  said  about  10  days  ago.  It  was  sometime 
about  the  12th  of  June  that  the  legal  organization  was  effected. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Where  did  you  organize;  here  in  Washington? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  At  what  place? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  You  mean  where  the  articles  were  signed? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes ;  in  what  room,  what  building,  was  it  that  you  got 
together? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  In  the  McLaughlin  Building. 

Mr.  RAKER.  About  how  many  were  present  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  can  not  say. 

Mr.  RAKER.  How  many  soldiers  that  were  overseas  in  the  com- 
bative service  participated  in  this  organization? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  How  many  soldiers  participated  in  the  signing  of 
the  papers? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes;  at  that  meeting  when  you  organized? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  This  man,  John  F.  Giles,  and  myself  were  the  only 
ones  that  were  in  the  fighting  over  there. 

Mr.  RAKER.  How  many  were  present  at  the  meeting  outside  of 
those ;  how  many  other  men  were  present  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  can  not  say.     There  were  not  very  many. 

Mr.  RAKER.  These  two  lawyers  were  present? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Just  one  of  them. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Did  you  have  any  meeting  prior  to  this  time! 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  We  had  conferences ;  yes,  sir. 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  715 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  just  had  conferences  prior  to  this  time? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes. 

Mr.  EAKER.  And  this  meeting  was  a  confirmation  of  that? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Absolutely;  yes,  sir.  We  had  many  conferences  on 
the  drawing  up  of  the  articles. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  have  articles  of  agreement  and  incorporation, 
have  you? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Well,  it  is  articles  of  association. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Will  you  furnish  a  copy  of  those  to  the  chairman,  so 
that  they  may  go  into  the  record? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Well,  I  can  not  right  now.  ' 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  mean,  will  you  to-morrow  or  next  day? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  can  not  say  that  I  would.    No;  I  have  a  right,  of 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  method  have  you  adopted  to  raise  your  salary— 
to  assess  each  of  the  boys  so  much? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  It  is  a  membership  proposition. 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  is  a  membership  proposition,  and  your  purpose  is 
to  go  out  and  get  all  the  boys  to  join  the  association  you  can? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Not  only  soldiers,  but  citizens. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  you  will  pay  the  officers  so  much  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir.  And  we  are  going  to  publish  a  magazine, 
too. 

Mr.  MATS.  And  will  you  take  in  sailors  also  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  About  how  many  signed  the  papers  of  organization? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Just  the  three  of  us. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Just  the  three  of  you"? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  then  you  fixed  your  salary  at  $7,500  ?  ' 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  the  idea  now  is  to  extend  the  organization  by 
writing  to  these  soldiers,  to  get  their  names  and  write  to  them,  ask- 
ing them  to  join  and  setting  out  the  purpose  of  the  organization  is 
to  remedy  and  correct  the  military  laws,  and  then  expect  them  to  pay 
a  certain  percentage  or  a  fee  each  year  to  belong  to  the  membership? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir.    And  not  only  the  soldiers,  sir,  but  citizens. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  understand;  this  organization  not  only  includes  sol- 
diers, but  everybody  else  who  wants  to  join  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  the  main  purpose  is  to  get  soldiers  to  join,  because 
they  are  interested  in  it? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Well,  the  main  purpose  is  to  get  those  who  believe 
jn  the  purposes,  as  set  forth  very  clearly,  to  join — citizens  and 
soldiers. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Were  there  as  many  as  10  present  when  this  was 
organized  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I^doubt  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Between  5  and  10;  somewhere  along  there? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  VAILE.  About  how  many  members  have  you  now,  sergeant? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  have  not  any  members  signed  up  yet  except  those 
who  were  present,  have  you  ? 


716  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  How  did  you  get  them? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  You  know  that  is  something  peculiarly  our  business 
and  not  germane  to  this. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Just  a  moment  now — 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Honestly,  now,  that  is  not  good  business. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Sure;  you  know,  Mr.  Jeffries,  Ave  do  not  want  any- 
thing but  what  is  germane  and  vital  to  this  question. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  For  your  information,  you  know — for  your  curi- 
o>ity.  you  know,  that  might  be  all  right. 

Mr.  RAKER.  My  curiosity  is  very  extensive,  but  it  is  valuable. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes;  we  have  other  members.  It  is  not  restricted  to 
snlisted  men;  we  have  officer-. 

Mr.  RAKER.  How  did  you  get  these  other  men? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Why,  different  means;  some  of  them  through  the 
mail. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Have  they  signed  up? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  They  have  paid  their  money. 

Mr.  RAKER.  About  how  many? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  do  not  want  to  state.  That  is  like  asking  a  pub- 
lisher to  turn  over  his  subscription  list  to  you  and  everything:  that 
is  not  done. 

Mr.  RAKER.  If  a  publisher  came  in  here  indorsing  any  matter 
before  the  committee  I  would  certainly  insist  on  knowing  who  his 
subscribers  were. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  am  not  asking  for  anything  from  this  committee — 
any  patronage  or  anything. 

Mr.  RAKER.  We  haven't  any  patronage  to  give. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  am  not  asking  you  to  sign  up  for  any  advertising 
in  the  magazine  or  anything  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  are  going  to  publish  a  magazine  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Absolutely;  yes,  sir.  And  I  am  to  be  editor  in 
chief  of  the  magazine,  too. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well,  it  ought  to  be  a  good  one. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir;  we  hope  so.  We  will  try  to  make  it  a 
good  one ;  we  certainly  will. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  Mr.  Witness,  to  get  down  to  the  bill :  You  are 
in  favor  of  the  general  purposes  of  the  legislation? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  now  there  are  criticisms  of  some  things  you  would 
like  to  have  changed,  namely,  you  do  not  want  any  department  to 
direct  and  control  the  personal  affairs  of  the  men,  the  mode  of  living, 
the  mode  of  cultivation;  the  way  he  builds  his  home,  the  way  he- 
builds  his  house,  and  the  way  he  lives ;  you  want  to  leave  that  to  the 
individual  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  want  to  leave  that  to  group  decisions  and  to  the 
individual. 

Mr.  RAKER.  To  the  individual  men,  exactly? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  That  is,  as  much  as  possible  to  the  individual,  and 
then  to  group  decisions  and  State  boards. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  wherever  that  is  in  the  bill,  your  idea  is  it  ought 
to  be  stricken  out? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  717 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  where  there  is  any  policy,  before  a  project  is 
-tartcd.  before  the  Secretary  acts,  or  any  public  official,  the  advice 
and  judgment  of  those  who  were  on  the  project,  or  who  were  inter- 
ested in  it,  should  control  and  not  the  Secretary  of  anybody  else? 
That  is  your  view,  isn't  it? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  think  their  counsel  and  advice  should  be  availed  of. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  before  any  action  is  taken  that  advice  and  counsel 
should  be  had  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Otherwise,  you  do  not  believe  it  would  work  well? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  do  not  believe  it  would  work  best  without  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  are  in  favor  of  having  each  soldier  treated  alike 
on  the  projects? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  As  nearly  as  can  be. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  are  against  giving  any  preference  to  one  over  the 
other  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  do  not  believe  the  farmer  boy  should  have  any 
preference  over  the  blacksmith  boy,  or  the  dentist  or  the  doctor,  or 
whatever  he  might  be,  who  went  into  the  service;  is  that  right?  You 
do  not  believe  he  should  have  any  preference  in  getting  a  home  on 
these  projects  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  think  it  should  be  open  to  all  on  the  same  terms; 
yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  that  if  a  soldier  should  happen  to  have  a  little 
residence  in  town,  and  there  is  a  project  started  some  place  in  the 
Southeast,  in  the  West,  or  in  the  North,  that  he  ought  to  have  a 
chance  to  go  out  there  and  get  his  home  as  well,  too;  oughn't  he? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  think  to  exclude  him  would  not  be  right,  because 
he  owns  a  little  tract  of  land,  a  little  home  in  some  city,  of  very  little 
value;  that  he  has  given  his  service,  and  if  he  wants  to  go  out  on  one 
of  these  projects,  he  ought  to  have  a  right  to  do  it? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  would  like  to  make  a  little  statement  along  that 
line,  if  you  care  to  have  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  All  right. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  take  issue  with  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  on 
that  one  proposition.  In  one  of  his  published  statements  he  said 
there  should  be  no  slacker  land  and  these  tracts  should  be  restricted 
to  a  size  which  will  just  merely  support  one  family,  and  there  should 
be  no  chance  of  unearned  increment.  Now,  then,  I  say  why  be  so 
particular  to  see  that  the  soldier  gets  no  chance  to  profit  by  unearned 
increment,  when  there  is  an  opportunity  that  is  afforded  to  every- 
body else?  For  instance,  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  where  I  have 
lived  now  for  four  years — for  six  years  counting  the  time  my  home 
has  been  there,  but  my  abode  somewhere  else — men  vei\y  commonly 
buy  80  acres  of  rough  land  where  they  do  not  expect  in  their  lifetime 
to 'develop  more  than  40  acres:  but  when  that  40  acres  is  developed, 
then  it  increases  the  value  of  the  other  40  acres — it  has  doubled, 
trebled,  or  quadrupled  it.  And  as  a  rule.  I  think  that  the  strong 
families  are  bred  and  born  and  raised  on  those  tracts,  and  that  it  is 
a  fine  thing  for  the  man.  This  is  a  long-time  bet  that  these  soldiers 
are  taking  when  they  take  this,  and  I  think  that  opportunity  should 


718  HOMES   FOB  SOLDIEES. 

be  afforded  them  to  take  more  land — double  the  amount  of  land,  prob- 
ably, that  they  themselves  can  be  expected  to  cultivate  within  the 
next  few  years,  at  least,  and  give  them  a  chance  to  benefit  by  the 
unearned  increment,  which  they  earn. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  Mr.  Jeffries,  I  have  put  this  question  many  times 
to  the  various  witnesses  before  this  committee  during  this  hearing, 
and  I  am  going  to  put  it  to  you  and  get  your  judgment  on  it:  Are 
you  in  favor  of  a  project  so  developed  as  to  get  the  roads  and  to  have 
the  water  for  it,  with  just  enough  land  cleared  so  that  the  soldier 
may  go  upon  the  place  with  a  little  home,  a  small  house  and  sufficient 
outbuildings,  and  leave  the  rest  of  his  tract  of  land — suppose  he  had 
100  acres,  to  leave  80  acres  for  him  to  clear  and  to  handle  and  to  add 
other  buildings  if  he  wants  to,  other  barns — do  you  thing  it  would 
be  better  for  him  to  live  in  that  way,  or  to  clear  it  all  up  at  once  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  believe  the  way  which  you  have  outlined  is  the 
better  way. 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  will  give  him  a  better  chance  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  It  will  give  him  a  better  chance,  absolutely. 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  will  give  him  a  chance  to  work  for  himself  and 
family? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  believe  that. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  give  him  a  chance  to  get  the  benefit  of  his  own 
labor  when  there  are  slack  times,  between  harvest  and  other  times  of 
the  year? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  believe  that  will  be  better  than  to  have  the  entire 
tract  developed  with  roads,  and  all  under  cultivation,  and  all 
cleared  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Absolutely.  I  think  that  w^uld  allow  the  settler 
to  apply  and  develop  his  individual  initiative  and  ability  to  the 
highest  degree;  and  that  is  certainly  to  be  desired. 

Mr.  RAKER.  One  other  question  in  regard  to  section  4.  I  have 
pressed  this  to  various  witnesses  and  I  am  going  to  put  it  to  you 
because  you  have  had  experience.  You  have  been  in  France  and 
observed  their  mode  of  living,  their  towns? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Their  communiques? 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  then  doing  all  the  work  from  town,  farming  the 
farms  from  the  city.  Are  you  in  favor  of  that  kind  of  living  in 
this  country? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  No,  sir ;  I  believe  in  homes  on  the  land. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Separate,  individual  homes? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Like  we  have  here  in  America.  The  worst  we  have 
in  any  of  these  rural  districts  is  far  superior  to  the  best  they  have  in 
the  communes  in"  France. 

Mr.  RAKER.  We  do  not  want  any  communist  centers — centers  where 
you  put  all  the  population  at  one  place  and  then  let  them  farm  their 
farms  from  where  they  live,  do  you? 

Mr.  JKI  FRIES.  Absolutely  not. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then  thai  provision,  sod  ion  4.  that  the  Department  of 
the  Interior  should  have  a  right  to  select  town  sitos.  to  establish 
them,  aii'l  to  build  up  a  regular  little  town.  You  do  not  believe  it- 
would  be  |)o»il>le.  do  you  '( 

Mr.  JKH--IMKS.  If  that  does  not  include  a  requirement  as  to  resi- 
dence and  participation  in  all  tho-e  activities,  I  think  that  the  policy 


HOMES   FOU   SOLDIERS.  719 

that  has  been  pursued  in  this  country  on  public  land  and  on  private 
land,  of  dedicating  for  school,  religious,  and  recreational  purposes 
certain  tracts  of  ground  that  are  decided,  by  those  in  a  position  to 
make  a  wise  decision,  to  be  peculiarly  adapted  to  the  center — 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  other  words,  set  aside  a  tract  of  land  for  a  park,  a 
schoolhouse,  or  for  other  purposes? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  then  let  the  people  themselves  select  the  kind  of 
church  they  want  to  build? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  the  kind  of  schoolhouse  they  want  to  build  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  do  not  want  any  committee,  commission  or  indi- 
vidual in  Washington  or  anywhere  else,  going  out  there  on  one  of 
those  projects  and  telling  you  what  kind  of  church  you  want  and  the 
kind  of  schoolhouse  you  want,  do  you? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  No, 'sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  think  it  will  create  trouble,  don't  you? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Sergeant,  on  a  settlement  of  that  kind,  would  you 
have  any  objection,  if  a  dozen  plans  were  laid  before  you  and  you  had 
the  privilege  of  selecting  the  one  that  suited  you  and  your  community 
best,  and  by  means  of  this  plan  you  could  purchase  the  material  at 
wholesale  prices — you  would  not  object  to  that  arrangement? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Absolutely  not. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  That  is  what  the  bill  contemplates. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  The  bill? 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Yes;  that  is  what  the  bill  contemplates. 

Mr.  -JEFFRIES.  There  is  no  objection  that  I  can  conceive  of.  This 
proposition  of  counsel,  advice,  suggestion,  and  plans,  that  is  in  line 
with  the  best  educational  efforts,  and  suggestions,  and  that  is  very 
fine.  But  the  choice  should  be  a  majority  choice;  that  is  the  Ameri- 
can way. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  But  it  brings  it  to  the  man  at  a  very  much  less 
price  than  he  could  handle  it  privately,  without  the  assistance? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  That  is  quite  possible. 

Mr.  BEX  HAM.  Would  you  assume  that  the  boys  would  be  better 
satisfied  with  an  advisor  'that  they  selected,  or  one  that  was  selected 
by  the  Interior  Department  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  To  what  advisor  do  you  refer? 

Mr.  BEXHAM.  The  advisor,  etc..  that  is  suggested  in  the  former 
question:  that  is.  an  agricultural  advisor,  of  this  gentleman  who  is 
in  charge  of  the  project,  who  is  to  act  as  advisor,  etc.  Now,  my 
question  is,  do  you  assume  that  the  boys  would  be  best  satisfied  with 
an  advisor  selected  by  themselves,  or  one  selected  by  the  Interior 
Department? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Of  course,  I  think  the  safest  policy  and  the  best 
policy  is  the  one  that  puts  the  responsibility  on  the  people  them- 
selves: and  I  think  that  the  soldiers  and  other  people  have  a  little 
more  confidence  in  their  State  boards ;  that  is.  they  feel  closer  to  the 
State  representatives  than  to  the  Federal  representatives.  I  think 
the  soldiers  have  a  great  deal  more  confidence  in  Congress  than  they 
have  in  any  of  the  departments;  I  will  say  that.  That  is  the  reason 
133319—19 i6 


720  HOMES   FOB  SOLDIERS. 

we  ask,  after  Congress  has  appropriated  the  money  under  provisions 
of  this  act,  what  supervisory  powers  it  has  over  those  expenditures. 
Now,  then,  we  have  found  during  the  progress  of  this  war  that  is 
about  the  only  place  we  could  get  any  kind  of  a  hearing  for  the 
enlisted  man — through  Congress,  through  Congressmen.  And  when 
we  came  back,  that  is  the  only  place  we  could  go  and  get  a  hearing — 
a  respectful  hearing. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  There  are  435  of  us  here  who  have  been  working 
for  you  every  day  and  night  since  you  went  into  the  Army — every 
last  one  of  us. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  We  believe  you  have  been  working  for  us;  we  believe 
Congress  has  the  sincere  desire,  in  the  establishment  of  the  war 
risk,  to  protect  the  soldiers  to  the  best  of  their  ability.  We  believe 
the  desire  of  Congress  was  absolutely  for  the  best  interests  of  the 
soldiers  in  that. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  is  your  view,  after  the  soldier  has  resided  upon 
the  place,  say,  for  from  three  to  five  years,  of  his  having  the  right 
to  dispose  of  it  at  his  own  will,  provided  the  Government  is  pro- 
tected ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  We  believe  that  he  should  be  protected  in  his  equi- 
ties; that  he  should  not  be  arbitrarily  restrained  from  realizing  on 
his  equity — that  he  should  not  be  arbitrarily  forced  to  remain  where 
lie  does  not  care  to  be. 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  other  words,  that  his  right  of  alienation  should 
not  be  given  except  within  a  reasonable  length  of  time  of  acquiring 
residence  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  We  think,  if  possible,  that  the  restriction  against 
transfer  should  be  stated  in  the  law. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Exactly. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  And  not  left  to  the  discretion  of  this  man  who  hap- 
pens to  be  now  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  or  somebody  else  who  hap- 
pens later  to  be  Secretary  of  the  Interior  ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  a  definite  period  should  be  fixed  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  would  you  say  in  regard  to  a  provision  in  the 
bill  that  where  the  soldier  does  take  the  homestead  and  the  cost 
against  it  has  not  been  paid,  of  there  remaining  a  lien  upon  the 
land  in  favor  of  the  Government  until  it  is  paid :  You  think  that 
would  be  fair,  don't  you? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Perfectly  just. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Perfectly  fair? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  are  familiar  with  the  present  homestead  law  in 
regard  to  it  not  being  subject  to  any  debt  contracted  by  the  home- 
steader prior  to  the  issuance  of  the  patent :  What  is  your  view  as  to 
whether  or  not  such  a  provision  should  be  included  in  this  bill  to 
protect  the  soldier  from  any  debts  contracted  prior  to  the  date  of 
the  issuance  of  the  patent  by  the  Government  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  should  think  he  should  have  the  same  protection. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Exactly. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  what  have  you  to  say  in  regard  to  his  physically 
and  actually  residing  upon  the  land  a  certain  length  of  time,  like 
upon  the  present  homesteads? 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  721 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Well,  sir,  I  think  that  there  is  a  case  where  it 
should  be  elastic,  where  it  should  be  left  to  the  decision  of  a  group — 
say.  the  State  board  and  the  settlers,  because  the  conditions  are  so 
much  different.  For  instance,  in  the  Northern  States  there  will  be 
a  period  of  many,  many  months  in  which  you  can  do  nothing. 

Mr.  BAKER.  We  have  provided  for  that  in  the  general  homestead 
law. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  think  the  same  provision  should  be  made  here. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  it  your  view,  in  talking  with  the  soldiers  and  from 
your  observation,  that  there  should  be  some  definite  provision  pro- 
vided in  this  bill  for  residence  upon  the  home  that  the  soldier  ob- 
tains ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  As  to  projects? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  If  he  got  an  isolated  tract,  he  should  live  on  it, 
shouldn't  he? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Not  necessarily.  I  do  not  think  he  should  be  gov- 
erned in  the  same  way. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  if  you  provide  a  home  for  the  man,  say,  60,  80> 
100.  or  120  acres,  and  suppose  it  is  an  isolated  tract,  or  a  separate 
home,  not  on  a  project? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Wouldn't  it  be  your  view  that  for  a  number  of  years, 
say.  three,  four,  or  five  years,  he  ought  to  make  that  his  home  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  The  same  conditions  would  not  prevail  and  the  same 
necessities  for  residence  there  would  not  prevail  on  the  isolated  tract 
that  would  on  the  project.  Because  of  the  project,  that  is  neces- 
sary— it  has  been  found  necessary. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Isn't  it  your  view  that  the  very  essence  of  the  success 
of  the  home  on  the  farm  is  the  fact  that  the  man  lives  there  and  con- 
ducts it  himself? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  no  absent  home  or  tenantry  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  therefore  if  you  are  going  to  do  the  right  thing 
for  the  soldiers,  we  ought  to  provide  in  the  law  for  requiring  a  rea- 
sonable amount  of  residence  upon  this  home  when  he  gets  it? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes,  sir.  I  doubt  if  there  would  be  any  serious 
objection  to  that. 

Mr.  SMITH.  You  stated  in  answer  to  an  inquiry  from  Mr.  Raker, 
of  California,  that  you  objected  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  hav- 
ing any  control  of  the  transfer  of  the  entry.  Do  you  not  think,  be- 
fore the  land  is  paid  for,  the  Secretary  would  naturally  want  to  keep 
track  of  it,  and  do  you  not  think  if  there  is  any  other  soldier  waiting 
for  this  land  that  he  should  have  a  preference  over  any  civilian  who 
wanted  to  buy  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes :  if  that  was  provided. 

Mr.  SMITH.  That  is  the  intention  of  this  provision. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Oh,  that  is  the  intention,  of  course ;  but  that  might 
l>e  a  different  intention  with  a  different  man:  that  is  the  idea.  We 
don't  want  it  left  to  individual  decisions.  For  instance,  in  my  recol- 
lection, conditions  were  not  in  the  Interior  Department  what  they 


722  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

are  to-day.  Suppose  that  the  Secretary  should  decide  that  he  could 
not  see  it  for  the  settler — he  could  not  see  any  necessity  for  allowing 
the  settler  to  dispose  of  it  to  another  soldier,  wouldn't  he  have  the 
authority  to  refuse  to  assent  to  the  transfer  and  couldn't  he  reserve 
his  absent  under  this  to  the  transfer  until  such  time  as  some  com- 
pany or  some  friends  or  somebody  should  make  the  offer  and  that 
would  come  before  him?  Isn't  that  a  possibility  under  this? 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  is  a  possibility,  but  it  is  not  likely  with  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Interior,  who  would  naturally  be  disinterested. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Oh,  yes.  We  have  had  a  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
who  was  charged  very  publicly  and  very  broadly  with  having  a 
direct  interest  in  similar  matters,  and  I  remember  it  very  well,  and 
those  things  might  happen  again.  I  stated  that  I  have  not  the  faith 
in  the  infallibility  of  man,  of  individuals,  that  I  had  before  I  went  to 
France. 

Mr.  MAYS.  You  have  to  have  somebody  to  do  this,  though? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  MAYS.  You  do  not  have  any  supernatural  agency? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  particular  thing  happened  over  there  that  shat- 
tered your  faith  in  man? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Many  things — the  high  percentage  of  officers  who 
did  seem  to  fall  for  this  superior  man  stuff. 

Mr.  FKKKIS.  Was  it  Czarism?  Was  it  abuse  or  what — I  ask  purely 
for  information? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Absolutely;  Prussianism  of  the  men  wrho  went  up 
from  the  ranks — a  few  of  them,  even — absolutely  wrere  tainted  by 
that.  I  have  seen  it  in  officers  myself,  men  who  have  stood  with  us, 
I  have  seen  them  separated  so  widely  from  us  who  were  their  fel- 
lows, that  you  would  not  dream  they  were  the  same  men. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Now,  as  you  are  undertaking  to  cure  that  in  the  pub 
lication  of  the  magazine  referred  to  and  the  organization  of  the  sol- 
diers, you  will  doubtless  have  a  very  great  influence ;  so  that  even  if 
they  have  Prussianism  in  the  Army  and  even  if  the  bulk  of  the  men 
did  not  approve  of  the  conduct  of  their  officers,  it  is  not  your  desire 
or  intent  to  suggest  they  all  have  that  feeling  in  the  Army  as  to  other 
governmental  agencies  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Absolutely  not. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  your  statement  was  not  so  intended  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  It  is  my  sincere  desire  to  aid  you  men  in  eliminating 
from  this  bill  anything"  that  can  be  eliminated  that  would  subject  it 
to  those  suspicions.  Honestly.  I  believe  in  equality.  I  want  to  see 
it  a  success.  I  have  been  engaged  in  constructive  work  for  years  and 
I  have  been  next  to  people  and  helped  to  prove  out  this  constructive 
work,  and  I  do  know  something  about  the  objections,  and  I  want  to 
bring  them  up  here.  But  I  think,  for  the  protection  of  the  Interior 
Department,  that  everything  should  be  settled  in  this  bill  that  can 
well  be  settled  in  this  bill,  so  as  to  relieve  the  Interior  Department  or 
any  individual  from  any  charge  of  favoritism. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Was  any  particular  maltreatment  or  czarism  visited 
on  you  that  intensified  your  views  on  it,  or  is  your  view  of  it  general 
and  based  on  general  observations? 

Mr.  .Ih.i'i  i.-ii.s.  Nothing  personal,  although  I  did  run  a  grave  risk 
of  lip'mg  subjected  to  an  inglorious  death  two  different  times  through 


HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS.  723 

fliv  having  protected  the  men  under  me  from  very  brutal  treatment 
from  men  of  higher  rank.  I  stood  between  and  was  sent  back  and 
reported  for  insubordination  in  the  face  of  the  enemy,  for  which  the 
penalty  is  death.  But  I  got  by  with  it. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Just  what  was  that  occurrence?  We  are  all  anxious 
to  know  of  any  maltreatment  of  the  Army. 

Mi-.  JEFFRIES.  That  is  some  story. 

Mr.  SMITH.  You  volunteered,  did  you? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes ;  all  of  the  men  in  my  regiment  were  volunteers ; 
they  were  all  skilled  men. 

Mr.  BEX  HAM.  I  would  suggest  if  the  reference  to  himself  is  al- 
low <1  to  stand  and  to  go  in  the  record  just  as  he  ha •>  stated,  that  he 
was  in  a  way  sent  back  under  arrest,  or  something  like  thai,  that 
leaving  that  where  it  is  it  reflects  upon  your  record. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  might  explain  it  if  he  wishes. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  My  idea  was  this;  it  was  in  work  under  fire  in  the 
Argonne;  and  in  our  company  we  had  a  sergeant,  first  class,  who 
was  very  ignorant  and  very  domineering.  He  could  not  write  his 
own  name  and  could  not  read  an  order  that  came  to  him,  and  he  was 
abusive  to  the  men,  very  abusive  to  the  men.  Ordinarily,  I  was  not 
in  direct  charge  of  the  men;  I  was  a  consulting  engineer;  but  this 
particular  day  the  sergeant  who  slept  with  me,  who  was  in  charge  of 
a  large  detail  of  men  on  construction  work,  reconstructing  the  bridges 
that  had  been  blown  out,  was  sick  and  asked  me  to  take  charge  of  the 
men.  And  knowing  there  was  general  dissatisfaction  with  the  treat- 
ment, among  the  men,  and  military  authority  is  counted  supreme, 
especially  at  the  front,  so  this  sergeant,  first  class,  was  abusive  to  the 
men  who  were  working  under  me  and  working  very  well — they 
worked  especially  well  under  fire.  And  he  told  them,  among  other 
things,  that  there  was  no  more  man  about  them  than  there  was  a 
God-damned  yellow  dog — he  used  those  words — and  then  he  told 
some  of  them  to  place  some  material  in  a  place  that  wras  not  the  place 
which  I  had  directed  them  to  place  the  material.  And  I  had  been 
instructed  by  the  lieutenant  who  was  in  command  of  the  company,  to 
take  charge  of  that  piecetof  work  and  to  lay  it  out  as  I  saw  best,  and 
so  the  men  obeyed  the  instructions  I  had  previously  given  and  refused 
to  deposit  the  material  where  he  told  them  to,  and  so  he  flew  at  me 
in  a  rage  and  cursed  me  and  told  me  to  see  that  those  men  did  what 
he  told  them  to  do.  And  it  was  just  the  last  straw. 

I  told  him  the  men  were  doing  wrhat  I  told  them  to  do  and  it  was 
the  right  thing  for  them  to  dp  and  that  is  what  I  wanted  them  to  dc. 
And  so  they  went  on  and  did  that.  Well,  we  had  a  few  personal 
words,  and  I  offered  to  knock  his  block  off,  right  then  and  there,  but 
he  did  not  want  to  try  that.  And  he  went  on  up  the  road  to  where 
the  first  lieutenant  was,  and  the  first  lieutenant  came  back  with  hir  \ 
and  said,  "Jeffries,  what  is  the  matter?"  I  said,  "Nothing  is  thj 
matter,  sir."  I  saluted.  I  said,  "The  work  is  going  along  fine;  the 
men  are  working  good."  He  says,  "  Daley  tells  me  you  refused  to 
take  orders  from  him."  I  said,  "  It  is  not  exactly  because  of  his 
orders :  it  is  because  of  his  abuse ;  he  is  abusive  to  the  men  and  never 
treats  them  like  they  were  men,  and  I  won't  stand  it  any  longer:  I 
won't  work  under  him  any  more,  never,  and  I  won't  allow  him  to 
interfere  with  men  who  are  working  under  me:  so  that  is  all  there  is 


724  HOMES   FOE   SOLDIERS. 

to  it."  He  said,  "  You  know  he  outranks  you,  don't  you  ?  "  I  said, 
"  Yes;  I  do."  He  said,  "  You  must  take  orders  from  him."  I  said, 
"  I  will  not  take  orders  from  him."  And  he  said,  "  Go  and  report  to 
the  captain  and  tell  him  I  sent  you  in  for  insubordination."  I  did ; 
and  I  walked  3  miles;  you  had  to  walk  3  miles  back  always  to  find  the 
captain.  And  I  went  back  and  I  reported.  The  lieutenant  had  gone 
in  on  a  motorcycle  and  made  his  charge.  I  stood  pat ;  and  I  told  the 
captain  I  was  ready  to  die  on  that ;  that  I  would  not  go  back  and  work 
under  those  conditions ;  and  I  acquainted  him  with  the  state  of  mind 
of  the  men.  I  even  suggested  to  him  that  even  his  life  might  not  be 
worth  much,  it  was  in  danger,  because  they  were  about  full  up.  And 
so  he  gave  me  a  letter  to  take  back  to  the  first  lieutenant,  sustaining 
me.  It  was  the  safest  thing  for  him  to  do  at  that  time.  And  the  lieu- 
te'nant  met  me  on  the  road.  He  had  talked  with  two  other  sergeants 
in  the  company,  who  had  told  him,  in  the  meantime,  that  the  com- 
pany was  back  of  me,  and  it  was  kind  of  scaly  business  right  then. 
And  so  he  was  hurrying  back  to  see  me.  He  was  a  good  man  at  heart, 
just  a  young  fellow  who  had  had  two  years  at  West  Point,  but  he  had 
this  Prussianism  drilled  into  him  until  he  could  not  see  a  man  in 
uniform :  he  just  saw  a  slave.  But  he  saw  some  men  there  that  day. 
And  he  got  off  his  motorcycle  and  he  said,  "  Jeffries,  I  want  to  talk 
to  you  about  this  proposition;  I  do  not  mean  to  say  I  did  right  and 
you  were  wrong,  because  I  think  I  was  wrong  and  you  were  right ; 
but  that  can  not  be  done  in  the  Army;  authority  must  be  maintained. 
I  had  to  uphold  Daley  or  I  would  have  lost  my  commission."  And  so 
he  said,  "  We  must  work  together.  God  knows  it  is  hard  enough  as 
it  is,  with  the  captain  overruling  me  in  everything  that  I  do,  to  try 
to  help  the  men,  and  so  we  have  to  get  together  and  we  can  arrange 
some  way  that  we  can  get  rid  of  Daley.  The  same  men  made  Daley 
that  made  the  captain,  and  the  captain  is  afraid  to  fire  him ;  but  we 
can  arrange  it  so  he  is  not  on  this  work  and  we  will  do  that."  So,  I 
said,  "  Lieutenant,  read  the  letter,"  and  he  read  the  letter  and  said, 
"  Well,  that  fixes  it  all  right."  It  fixed  it  all  right;  that  sergeant  did 
camp  police  duty  from  then  on  until  the  demobilization  of  the  regi- 
ment last  week. 

Mr.  SMITH.  And  you  were  left  in  charge? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  was  sent  back  to  take  charge ;  yes,  sir.  But,  mind 
you,  this  was  not  freely  granted.  You  see,  I  was  in  jeopardy  there 
and  I  do  feel  the  men  ought  not  to  have  to  be.  You  see.  I  still  feel 
that.  I  had  a  wife  and  four  children  that  I  think  a  great  deal  of,  of 
course,  and  I  took  my  chance  of  getting  busted  with  a  shell  or  a 
bullet  many  times,  and  that  is  the  chance  you  have  to  take;  but  I 
do  not  think  the  soldier  ought  to  have  to  take  the  chance  of  being 
shot  for  insubordination  under  those  conditions.  And  we  certainly 
had  to  take  that  chance  any  time  we  stood  against  the  abuse  of  men 
who  were  loyally  working  for  us.  I  think  only  the  enlisted  men  did 
that;  I  did  not  see  the  officers  ever  running  the  risk  of  losing  their 
commissions,  being  demoted,  in  standing  up  for  the  men  under  them. 
Probably  many  of  them  did,  but  they  did  not  come  under  my  obser- 
ve! ion ;  but  I  have  seen  enlisted  men  do  that  many  times. 

Mr.  MATS.  That  is  the  only  trouble  you  had  with  the  oll'uvrs? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes;  practically.  This  same  lieutenant  was  the  first 
man  in  our  regiment  to  join  this  organization. 

Mr.  SMITH.  This  lieutenant  is  in  the  Regular  Army? 


HOMES  FOB  SOLDIERS.  725 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  He  is  in  the  Officers'  Reserve  Corps. 

Mr.  SMITH.  He  is  a  West  Point  man? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Two  years,  I  understand,  he  had  had  in  West  Point; 
but  he  did  not  complete  his  course. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  suggest  that  the  witness  be  requested  in  a  bill  to 
indicate  just  what  he  thinks  so  that  we  will  have  his  views  in  con- 
crete form. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Could  you,  without  any  trouble,  prepare  amend- 
ments and  send  to  me  the  amendments  you  think  would  be  desirable 
to  the  bill,  for  the  consideration  of  the  committee  when  we  go  into 
the  consideration  of  the  bill  ? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  would  be  glad  to  do  as  much  as  I  can  do  toward 
that,  but  I  do  not  want  to  take  that  as  a  contract. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Of  course,  we  will  take  up  your  questions  and 
suggestions  in  executive  session,  but  if  you  could  supplement  that 
with  certain  amendments  which  you  think  might  make  the  bill  more 
workable  and  satisfactory  the  committee  would  like  to  consider  them. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  should  be  glad  to  work  with  anybody  who  has 
had  experience  along  that  line,  but  it  is  a  pretty  big  job  and  I  am 
pretty  busy  to  undertake  it  alone,  and  I  would  not  like  to  undertake 
it  as  a  contract. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  want  to  impose  a  burden  on  you,  but  if 
you  have  the  time  to  do  it  the  committee  would  appreciate  that. 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  Yes. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Where  do  you  reside  in  Washington? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  I  have  a  room. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Where? 

Mr.  JEFFRIES.  928  Fourteenth  Street  NW. 

(The  committee  thereupon  adjourned  to  to-morrow,  Thursday, 
June  26,  1919,  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.) 


COMMITTEE  ON  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS, 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Thursday,  Jwie  26,  1919. 

The  committee  met  at  10.30  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Nicholas  J.  Sinnott 
(chairman)  presiding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  come  to  order. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  insert  in  the  record  a  paper 
which  Sergt.  Jeffries  has  presented,  the  prospectus  he  spoke  of  yes- 
terday of  the  American  Military  Reform  Association,  of  which  Mr. 
Jeffries  is  president. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Without  objection,  that  will  be  done. 

(The  paper  referred  to  follows:) 

Tin:   AMERICAN   MILITARY   REFORM    ASSOCIATION,    WASHINGTON,   D.    C. ;   HUGH 
JEFFRIES,  PRESIDENT. 

The  American  Military  Reform  Association  is  the  outgrowth  of  many  con- 
ferences of  soldiers  and  citizens  in  the  United  States  and  in  the  American 
Expeditionary  Force  camps  in  France.  It  is  primarily  a  citizens'  organization 
with  certain  well-defined  purposes,  and  is  in  no  way  opposed  to  the  American 
Legion,  which  is  a  soldiers'  organization,  nonpartisan  and  nonpolitical. 


726  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 


The  object  of  this  association  shall  be  to  secure,  by  appropriate  National  and 
State  legislation,  certain  reforms  in  our  military  laws  and  policies  which  ap- 
pear to  be  necessary  and  to  be  the  inevitable  outcome  of  the  experience  gained 
in  the  World  War. 

The  policy  of  the  association  shall  be  at  all  times  to  discountenance  any  senti- 
ment or  action  which  is  aimed  in  any  way  to  attack,  undermine,  or  discredit  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  the  established  law  of  the  land,  or  legally  con- 
stituted authority.  The  association  is  opposed  to  the  principles  proposed  by 
the  Bolshevists,  the  I.  W.  W.'s.  and  any  and  all  organized  efforts  wherein 
reform  or  revolution  is  sought  to  be  brought  about  through  violence  or  co- 
ercive measures,  for  the  reason  that  it  is  recognized  by  thi:  association  that 
under  the  Con:-titution  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States  all  reforms  which 
are  deemed  necessary  by  the  sovereign  people  can  be  brought  about  in  an 
orderly,  peaceable  manner,  through  the  rights  of  free  speech,  the  free  press, 
petition  and  exercise  of  suffrage,  and  that  the  present  established  machinery 
of  government,  if  availed  of,  i-;  fully  sufficient  for  the  carrying  out  of  the 
will  of  the  people  in  matters  of  reform  which  shall  appear  to  them  to  be  neces- 
sary from  time  to  time. 

The  purpose  of  this  association  is  to  ;issist  in  every  honorable  and  legiti- 
mate manner  in  the  securing,  through  appropriate  legislation  and  through  co- 
operative effort  and  assistance,  of  the  following  reliefs  and  reforms: 

1.  Immediate  and  unconditional  abolition  of  all  forms  of  censorship  of  letters 
and  publications. 

2.  Complete  restoration  of  the  rights  of  free  speech  and  a  free  press,  includ- 
ing the  right  to  criticize  the  Government,  the  Army,  and  the  Navy,  and  officials, 
both  civil  and  military. 

3.  An  immediate  reform  of  the  court-martial  system  along  the  lines  proposed 
and  recommended  in  Senate  bill  No.  64,  introduced  by  Senator  Chamberlain, 
and  House  bill  No.  367,  by  Representative  Johnson  of  South  Dakota,  in  the  lir^l 
session  of  the  Sixty-sixth  Congress,  in  the  interests  of  justice,  humanity,  and 
efficiency,  as  opposed  to  despotic,  tyrannical  personal  authority  and  so-called 
expediency. 

4.  An   immediate   review   of   all   courts-martial    cases   by    an   unprejudiced 
judicial  tribunal,  vested  with  full  powers  and  jurisdiction,   to  the  end  that 
in  so  far  as  may  now  be  possible,  justice  may  be  done  in  all  cases  where  sen- 
tences have  been  illegally  imposed  or  appear  to  be  of  undue  severity. 

5.  A  change  in  our  national  military  system  wherein  all  despotic,  autocratic, 
arbitrary  authority  now  held  by  officers  is  entirely  removed :  wherein  the  line 
of  demarcation  in  our  Army  which  separates  the  enlisted  men  from  the  officers' 
personnel  under  the  assumption  that  the  enlisted  man  has  neither  honor,  in- 
telligence, nor  ability,  and  that  the  officer  is  possessed  of  all  these  qualifications, 
but  to  a  degree  only   commensurate  with  his  rank,  is  entirely   effaced,   and 
wherein  all  to  whom  authority  may  be  delegated  shall  be  accountable  for  the 
proper  exercise  of  that  authority  to  those  over  whom  the  authority  is  exercised 
and  to  the  sovereign  people,  instead  of  only  to  those  of  higher  rank. 

A  system  based  on  the  good  American  principles  of  justice,  humanity,  and 
efficiency  which  will,  in  so  far  as  is  humanly  possible,  make  the  most  effective 
use  of  our  man  power  and  our  material  resources  in  our  preparation^  for 
national  defense  and  in  case  of  war,  and  under  which  our  Army,  in  times  of 
peace,  may  be  employed  in  the  great  work  of  national  improvements  such  as 
construction  and  improvement  of  highways,  railways,  and  waterways,  and  in 
the  development  of  natural  resources  with  100  per  cent  efficiency  as  the  goal. 

A  system  wherein  promotions  come  only  as  a  reward  of  real  merit  and 
wherein  the  enlisted  man  is  guaranteed  an  honest  opportunity  to  gain  ad- 
vancement through  ability  and  application,  up  to  the  highest  rank  in  the 
Army,  based  on  the  sound  principles  and  practices  which  have  been  developed 
and  proven  out  in  the  development  of  the  great  business  and  industrial  organi- 
zations of  the  United  States. 

A  system  wherein  the  pay  of  officers  and  enlisted  men  shall  approximate  the 
pay  of  men  of  like  ability  employed  in  similar  work  in  our  civil  life:  wherein 
the  requirements  as  to  application  and  production  shall  equal  or  excel  those  of 
our  business  and  industrial  institutions,  and  wherein  the  opportunity  for  indi- 
vidual initiative  and  progress  shall  receive  the  fullest  consideration. 

An  honest,  four-square,  democratic,  American-made  military  system  in  pla<v 
of  the  old,  despotic,  inefficient,  unjust,  wasteful,  caste-breeding  system  which 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  727 

has  come  clown  to  us  from  the  old-time  military  establishments  of  England 
and  Germany,  and  which  is  unnecessary  and  wholly  unbearable  to  a  liberty- 
loving,  brave,  and  intelligent  people. 

MEMBERSHIP. 

Membership  in  the  association  is  open  to  all  citizens  and  residents  of  the 
United  States  or  its  dependencies  who  believe  in  its  purposes  and  on  the  fol- 
lowing terms,  payable  in  advance,  by  personal  check,  draft,  money  order,  or 
currency:  Annual  membership,  $1  annually;  Sentry  membership,  $2  annually; 
contributing  membership,  $5  annually ;  sustaining  membership,  $10  annually ; 
life  membership,  $50.  one  payment:  patron  membership,  $100,  one  payment 

XOTE. — All  memberships  except  the  $1  annual  membership  include  a  year's 
subscription  to  the  American  Sentry. 

Send  in  your  name  and  address  and  fee  for  the  class  of  membership  you 
desire.  Ask  for  information  as  to  the  forming  of  local  chapters.  Organizers 
wanted  in  every  locality  to  further  the  purposes  of  the  association.  An  attrac- 
tive proposition  will  be  offered  those  who  wish  to  help. 

The  American  Sentry,  to  be  published  semimonthly  by  the  association,  will 
carry  a  great  deal  of  very  interesting  reading  material  prepared  by  some  of  the 
best  writers  in  the  world,  and  it  will  also  afford  the  soldiers  of  the  American 
Expeditionary  Forces  a  chance  to  tell  the  truth  about  their  Army  experiences 
in  this  country  and  in  France  and  Germany. 

Address :  •'  The  American  Military  Reform  Association,  Hugh  Jeffries,  presi- 
dent. Warder  Building,  Washington,  D.  C." 

[This  form  may  be  used.] 

To  the  AMERICAN  MILITARY  REFORM  ASSOCIATION, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

Inclosed  find'S —  -  for  —  -  (state  class  of  membership)  membership 
in  the  American  Military  Reform  Association. 

(Name:) , 


(Address:) . 

(Date:) .  1919. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  we  will  have  the 
water-power  bill  up  to-day  at  12  o'clock,  and  I  suppose  we  will  want 
to  adjourn  promptly  at  that  time.  Xow.  I  have  learned  of  no  further 
witnesses  opposing  the  bill.  That  being  true,  we  have  other  wit- 
nesses here  in  favor  of  the  bill 

Mr.  NICHOLS  (interposing).  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  ask  if 
that  lady  who  spoke  the  other  day  and  said  there  were  some  soldiers 
that  she  would  bring  before  the  committee  is  here? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  haven't  heard  further  from  her. 

Mrs.  OXLET,  of  Washington,  D.  C.  Mr.  Chairman,  there  is  one 
soldier  to  be  heard  to-day,  Lieut.  Gordon.  He  is  a  very  busy  man, 
and  he  said  he  would  try  to  be  here  about  11  o'clock,  but  he  has  not 
arrived. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  the  committee  can  not  wait  on  the  con- 
venience of  witnesses  very  well. 

Mrs.  OXLEY.  Could  I  make  a  statement? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  already  made  a  statement,  Mrs.  Oxley. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  What  is  the  status  of  the  time.  Mr.  Chairman,  as 
to  the  three  hours  for  the  opponents  of  the  bill  and  the  time  for  the 
proponents  of  the  bill  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Three  hours  remain  for  those  favoring  the  bill, 
and  the  opponents  of  the  bill  have  used  two  hours — nine  minutes 
short  of  two  hours. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Are  there  any  more  witnesses,  or  any  more  that 
desire  to  offer  further  testimony? 


728  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  haven't  heard  of  any  more,  excepting  the  state- 
ment of  Mrs.  Oxley  this  morning.  You  heard  that. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Has  anybody  asked  to  be  heard  in  favor  of  the  bill? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No  one  has  asked  to  be  heard  against  the  bill. 
There  are  four  here  who  are  in  favor  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Some  more  in  favor  of  it? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Why  not  proceed  with  those,  then,  Mr.  Chairman, 
and  leave  the  time  till  later  if  the  opponents  come  in  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  will  be  satisfactory,  I  think.  Mr.  Hansen  is 
here.  Mr.  Hansen,  will  you  come  forward,  please?  State  to  the  com- 
mittee your  name  and  address. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  WILLIAM  L.  HANSEN,  OF  SALT  LAKE  CITY, 

UTAH. 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  committee,  my 
name  is  William  L.  Hansen,  of  Salt  Lake  City,  Utah.  May  I  here 
suggest  that  at  a  meeting  of  my  associate  delegates  last  evening  I  was 
asked  to  represent  this  matter  to-day,  and  1  took  the  liberty  to  write 
down  what  I  would  like  to  say,  and  with  your  permission  I  will 
read  it. 

I  ask  that  I  be  permitted  to  continue  until  I  get  through,  after 
which  I  will  be  very  pleased  to  answer  any  questions  that  the  com- 
mittee may  desire  to  ask. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  be  pleased  to  accord  you  that  privilege. 

Mr.  HANSEN  (reading)  : 

MEMORANDUM. 

1  am  William  I..  Hanson,  of  Salt  Lake  City.  Utah,  a  bishop  of  the  Church  of 
Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints,  and  am  in  charge  of  the  colonization  work 
of  the  church.  I  might  also  just  add  that  I  am  the  son  of  a  worthy  pioneer 
farmer  who  drove  an  ox  team  from  Omaha  into  the  Salt  Lako  Valley  in  1856, 
walking  almost  the  entire  distance,  and  who  is  to-day  an  ardent  supporter  of 
this  most  laxidable  proposal. 

I  wish  !o  say.  gentlemen,  that  T  have  made  a  very  careful  study  of  the  Mon- 
dell  bill.  I  have  conferred  with  men  of  practical  experience  in  colonization 
work  both  singly  and  collectively,  not  only  in  Utah,  but  other  States  of  the 
Intel-mountain  region,  before  starting  for  the  East.  I  was  one  of  the  committee 
appointed  by  the  Governors  of  Utah,  Idaho,  and  Nevada,  who  met.  on  the  7th 
day  of  this  month  in  the  office  of  our  own  capitol  building  to  consider  techni- 
cally and  in  detail  all  of  the  phases  of  this  bill.  Together  we  put  this  bill 
right  under  the  searchlight,  subjecting  it  to  the  most  careful  consideration 
from  every  point  of  view  and  unanimously  moved  to  indorse  same  with  some 
minor  recommendations. 

Since  arriving  in  Washington  I  have  conferred  with  officials  of  the  Interior 
Department  as  to  the  manner  in  which  such  a  law  would  be  administered  and 
satisfactory  explanations  have  been  made  in  every  instance. 

I  am  now  prepared  t<>  say  that  I  approve  the  Mondell  bill  and  am  convinced 
that  with  these  minor  amendments  which  I  shall  suggest  it  is  well  calculated 
to  accomplish  the  objects  for  \\hich  it  was  framed. 

In  the  second  place.  I  wish  to  say  that  in  giving  our  approval  to  this 
measure  we  are  speaking  from  a  practical  rather  than  a  theoretical  point  of 
view.  The  .Mormon  pioneers  entered  Sail  Lako  Valley  .July  1M,  1S47,  and  we  are 
basing  our  conclusions  concerning  this  bill  upon  our  whole  experience  of  7'J 
years.  I  think  it  is  generally  conceited  that  we  have  been  successful  colonizers 
and  have  done  our  full  share  in  building  up  the  western  country.  We  have, 
of  course,  learned  some  very  valuable  lessons  in  the  course  of  an  experience 
which  has  taken  hundreds  of  thousands  of  men  of  very  small  means,  including 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  729 

many  who  were  practically  penniless  anil  established  them  successfully  in  self- 
sustaining  homes  of  their  own.  I  am  somewhat  surprised,  and  very  much 
gratified,  to  find  that  the  lessons  of  this  experience  are  embodied  to  a  very 
considerable  extent  in  the  Mondell  bill. 

Another  point  which  I  want  to  make  very  clear  is  this :  We  have  not  con- 
sidered this  bill  merely  from  the  standpoint  of  Utah  and  the  West,  nor  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  work  in  which  I  am  personally  engaged,  the  colonization 
work  of  the  Mormon  Church,  but  I  can  see  no  reason  whatever  why  this  pro- 
posed law  should  not  be  just  as  successful  in  every  other  part  of  the  country 
as  in  Utah,  and  I  see  no  reason  why  it  should  not  work  as  well  with  all  ele- 
ments of  people,  and  of  all  denominations  or  people  of  no  religion  whatever, 
us  it  will  certainly  work  with  my  own  people.  I  say  this,  because  I  believe  the 
Mondell  bill  does  embody  principles  of  intelligent  executive  power,  of  care  for 
the  soldier's  welfare,  and  of  community  interests  which  would  make  it  possible 
also  to  build  up  and  develop  successfully  prosperous  communities  in  any  part 
of  the  United  States  where  suitable  lands  and  opportunities  are  available. 

I  am  also  of  the  firm  opinion  that  if  the  owners  of  nonnroducing  lands  in  the 
North  and  East,  viewed  by  us  from  our  car  windows  as  we  passed  through 
these  States  on  our  way  to  this  city,  would  earnestly  cooperate  with  the  true 
spirit  and  intent  of  the  Mondell  bill,  mt-y  would  be  great  benefactors  not  only 
to  the  soldiers  and  their  communities  but  would  add  impetus  and  strength  to 
one  of  the  most  laudable  resources  we  have  within  the  reach  of  our  own  Nation. 

The  problem  of  my  own  people  from  the  beginning  has  been  how  to  take  men 
with  little  or  r.o  money,  very  often  with  little  or  no  agricultural  experience, 
and  accomplish  three  things: 

First.  To  give  them  employment,  such  as  clearing  and  cultivating  land,  teach 
them  the  art  of  proper  irrigation,  building  roads,  ditches,  canals,  reservoirs, 
etc.,  and  doing  everything  that  is  necessary  to  convert  a  raw  wilderness  into  a 
productive  agricultural  district. 

Second.  How  to  handle  these  men  so  that  they  would  become  industrious, 
loyal,  and  self-supporting  citizens,  lovers  of  home  and  home  life  with  its  accom- 
panying desires  to  own  their  own  homes,  their  own  little  farms,  and  be  per- 
manent residents  and  community  benefactors;  how  to  save  their  money  from 
small  earnings  and  combine  same  with  their  own  labors  in  building  their 
own  homes  and  in  making  the  necessary  essential  improvements  around  same. 

Third.  How  to  organize  these  settlers  into  communities  so  that  they  might 
have  all  the  necessary  institutions  of  educational,  commercial,  religious,  social, 
and  industrial  life  that  is  within  the  power  of  the  people  to  give. 
'  I  want  to  ask  you  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  Are  these  not  the  identical 
problems  with  which  you  are  called  upon  to  deal  as  lawmakers  in  considering 
the  welfare  of  our  returning  soldiers?  Well,  these  were  the  problems  faced  by 
President  Brigham  Young  at  the  beginning  of  the  Utah  settlement  two  years 
previous  to  the  discovery  of  gold  in  California.  These  are  the  problems  with 
which  the  successors  of  President  Young  have  dealt  to  this  present  hour  and 
with  which  I  am  dealing  to-day  as  head  of  the  colonization  department  under 
President  Heber  J.  Grant. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  it  might  be  of  some  value  to  you  to  open  the 
door  of  our  entire  experience  in  building  hundreds  of  farms  and  tens  of  thou- 
sands of  homes  not  only  throughout  the  State  of  Utah  but  in  several  other 
St. U os  and  some  foreign  countries,  including  the  Dominion  of  Canada.  You 
possess  certain  very  great  advantages  as  compared  with  the  pioneers  of  our 
work.  You  have  the  advantage  of  abundant  capital  and  of  all  modern  equip- 
ments. You  can  sit  down,  and  figure  out  the  cost  of  a  given  project  or  even 
of  the  entire  policy  and  then  draw  upon  the  credit  of  the  United  States  to 
furnish  the  money.  You  have  at  your  command  the  best  talent  available  in 
every  part  and  branch  of  your  work,  whereas  we  had  to  develop  talent  and  use 
such  implements  and  other  limited  means  within  our  reach.  You  can  operate 
on  a  very  large  scale  in  clearing  land,  building  works,  and  doing  other  essential 
things  with  the  most  up-to-date  machinery,  with  an  abundance  of  labor  at  your 
command,  where  we  were  often  hampered  not  only  by  lack  of  capital  but  by 
small  numbers  and  poor  facilities. 

You  have  a  great  reservoir  of  the  finest  young  men  on  earth,  25,000  of  which 
came  from  our  own  ranks  and  are  of  good  pioneer  stock.  With  such  resources 
to  draw  upon  for  your  settlers,  young  men  inured  to  outdoor  life,  schooled  in 
discipline,  and  animated  not  only  by  the  desire  to  make  homes  for  themselves 
but  to  perform  other  great  service  for  their  country.  We  had  to  take  settlers  of 
all  .ages,  -all  nationalities,  and  under  all  conditions,  not  a  few  of  which  had 


730  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

passed  beyond  the  days  of  youth  and  were  strange  to  outdoor  tasks.  But.  gen- 
tlemen, we  now  have  the  advantage  over  those  who  are  called  upon  to  write  this 
law.  We  have  the  advantage  of  70  years'  experience  in  actually  doing  the 
things  you  are  talking  about  doing,  and  whatever  they  say  about  the  Mormon 
people  no  one  has  ever  yet  said  that  they  do  not  know  how  to  do  this  kind  of  a 
job.  Their  sternest  critics  have  never  denied  their  industry,  their  thrift,  their 
ability  to  take  a  company  of  poor  men  and  convert  them  into  a  settlement  of 
land  proprietors  owning  their  own  homes,  working  for  themselves,  paying  their 
way,  and  fulfilling  the  obligations  of  the  highest  type  of  American  citizens. 

Now,  gentlemen,  if  you  want  the  benefit  of  our  experience  I  am  here  to  be  of 
any  service  within  my  power  and  to  answer  any  questions  you  may  care  to  ask 
me,  but  first  permit  me  to  submit  my  suggestions  concerning  a  few  minor 
amendments  to  this  bill. 

In  conclusion  may  I  just  say  that  I  am  for  the  Mondell  bill  with  the  following 
suggestions  and  for  the  spirit  of  this  legislation  in  offering  an  oppotrunity  for 
our  soldier  hoys  to  own  their  own  farms,  for  the  following  reasons: 

The  farmer  is  truthfully  recognized  as  the  most  independent  man  in  the 
world  to-day. 

There  is  no  more  ideal  home  for  the  family  than  the  modern  up-to-date  farm 
which  is  also  the  true  source  of  natural  wealth. 

According  to  printed  statistics  85  per  cent  of  the  rich  men  of  the  United 
States  became  wealthy  through  the  advance  in  real  estate  and  its  resources. 

It  is  also  said  that  at  the  present  rate  of  increasing  city  population  and  lag- 
ging agricultural  activities  that  congestion,  labor  troubles,  distressed  industrial 
conditions,  and  suffering  are  inevitable  which  can  only  be  relieved  by  the 
fa  rmer. 

Gentlemen,  let  us  help  these  solders  "Forward  to  the  farm." 

Xow,  the  suggestions  that  we  considered  and  talked  over  at  the 
table  in  the  governor's  office  in  Utah  have  the  following  thoughts : 

In  your  opening  paragraph  of  the  bill  it  reads:  "To  provide  em- 
ployment and  rural  homes  for  those  who  have  served  with  the  mili- 
tary and  naval  forces  through  the  reclamation  of  lauds."  As  it 
reads  we  desire — we  feel  that  that  wording  is  a  little  misleading,  and 
would  like  to  suggest:  "  The  acquisition  and  development  of  land-.  1o 
be  known  as  the  soldier  settlement  act." 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  would  change  the  title  of  the  bill? 

Mr.  HANSKX.  We  changed  the  title  by  making  it  read  instead  of 
••reclamation"  make  it  read  "acquisition  and  development."  be- 
cause all  of  the  work  is  not  intended  to  be  reclamation  work. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  As  I  understand  it,  there  are  other  things  contem- 
plated besides  reclamation. 

Mr.  HAXSEN.  Yes;  and  it  is  a  little  misleading  and  throws  us  way 
up  into  the  big,  cold  reclamation  projects;  so,  to  bring  it  a  little  nearer 
home  and  make  it  answer  the  true  intent  of  the  purpose,  we  feel  that 
that  word  would  probably  be  a  little  more  fitting. 

On  page  2,  line  17,  we  thought  the  words  "  a  commissioner  or  com- 
missioners" might  be  inserted  instead  of  the  words  "a  representa- 
tive of  the  governor/'  and  also  to  insert  the  words  "or  Territory." 
So  that  it  would  read,  "approved  by  a  commissioner  or  commis- 
sioners of  the  governor  of  the  State  or  Territory  in  which  the  lands 
are  located." 

Our  governor  has  already  appointed  commissioners  for  this  pur- 
pose. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Those  commissioners  would  still  be  representative, 
wouldn't  they? 

Mi-.  HANS i: x .  Possibly  so. 

Mr.  TAYI.OH.  What  is  the  idea  of  using  the  word  "Territory  "  in- 
stead of  the  word  "  State?"  We  haven't  g<»1  any  Territories. 

Mr.  HAXSKX.   Not  instead:  just  insert  the  words  "or  Territory." 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  731 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  So  as  to  make  it  applicable  to  the  Hawaiian  Islands 
or  Alaska  ? 

Mi-.  HANSEN.  Yes:  or  any  place  that  might  be  chosen  to  be  used. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Is  Bamberger  still  governor  of  Utah? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes,  sir.  On  page  3,  line  1,  there  is  the  same  thought 
that  is  contained  In  the  introduction,  instead  of  having  it  read,  "  for 
the  permanent  reclamation  or  development."  have  it  read,  '"  for  the 
acquisition  and  development  of  the  lands."  On  the  same  page,  line  9, 
the  words  "  in  no  single  case  exceed  $1,200,"  we  thought  the  words 
"  $2,000  or  $2,500  "  should  be  substituted.  We  really  spoke  of  $2,000, 
but  I  am  more  inclined  to  favor  $2,500  for  the  following  reasons : 

By  virtue  of  a  loaning  fund  made  available  about  four  years  ago 
I  now  have  a  great  deal  to  do  with  men  who  come  and  want  assistance, 
who  already  have  the  title  to  their  lands,  who  are  out  on  the  frontiers 
and  who  own  their  lands,  and  they  are  pretty  well  along,  but  their 
homes  are  deplorable  and  uninviting,  and  they  are  not  satisfactory 
or  agreeable  for  their  families  and  young  people.  It  is  not  what 
they  would  desire  for  their  homes,  and  so  in  similar  cases  the  soldier 
may  come  to  you  and  ask  for  some  money  to  make  and  build  his  im- 
provements ;  he  doesn't  want  it  for  anything  else ;  he  doesn't  want  it 
to  acquire  land;  he  doesn't  want  any  assistance  to  buy  live  stock  or 
implements,  or  anything,  but  he  would  like  to  have  some  assistance 
in  building  a  home.  He  will  put  up  his  own  labor  against  that,  and 
as  building  material  is  very  high,  if  he  should  want  to  have  a  little 
more  money,  I  think  it  should  be  left  within  the  discretion  of  the  State 
commissions  to  use  their  judgment  in  such  cases.  Of  course,  as  very 
often — we  have  no  rules  in  our  limited  regulations  about  that,  and 
it  has  thus  far  been  left  up  to  me  to  decide.  I  make  the  recommenda- 
tions to  my  committee  of  three,  and  if  these  recommendations  are 
approved  they  indorse  it  and  the  secretary  and  treasurer  is  author- 
ized to  advance  the  money.  And  I  think  that  the  man  on  the  job  at 
the  particular  time  is  probably  in  a  position  and  desires  to  hold  it 
back  as  much  as  he  can,  but  there  are  exceptional  cases  where  $1.200 
would  not  be  sufficient  to  meet  the  needs. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  your  observations  in  this  particular  relate  to 
the  farm  units,  to  the  colony,  or  the  segregated  farm  units? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  In  this  particular  it  is  possible  in  new  developments 
and  settlements,  and  is  not  restricted  farticularly  to  any  settlement 
plan. 

The  same  thing  would  apply  to  another  clause  that  is  just  similar 
to  it — I  will  come  back  again  here,  but  on  page  5,  line  2,  this  same 
thing  applies  to  $800,  which  we  would  like  to  recommend  be  made  to 
read  "  $1,500." 

Mr.  MAYS.  Line  10,  page  5  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes.  For  the  same  purpose  that  they  may  have 
everything  else  and  may  not  want  any  more  assistance  in  any  way, 
but  they  lack  a  few  hogs  or  sheep  or  a  few  milch  cows  and  some  live 
stock  around  their  place.  Eight  hundred  dollars  doesn't  go  very 
far  for  a  man  under  that  condition  at  the  present  price  of  good  cattle, 
which  we  want  to  recommend  and  which  we  are  recommending  .that 
they  get,  good  registered  stock,  or  good  choice  stock,  and  so  in  order 
to  do  that  $800  doesn't  go  very  far.  It  may  be  that  he  wouldn't  want 
any  money  for  any  other  consideration  but  that. 


732  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Going  back  to  page  4,  line  9, 1  hardly  feel  that  5  per  cent  is  enough 
to  ask  of  the  purchaser  when  you  are  advancing  him  a  great  amount 
of  money — a  large  amount — and  I  would  like  to  recommend  that  that 
first  payment  read  10  per  cent  of  the  sale  price  instead  of  5.  Now, 
the  reason  is  this :  That  while  we  want  to  help  the  boys  without  any 
means,  we  do  not  want  to  place  five  or  six  or  seven  thousand  dollars, 
as  the  case  may  be,  in  their  own  possession  if  they  themselves  neither 
have  the  resource  nor  the  ability  to  raise  one-tenth  of  the  amount  that 
we  are  intrusting  or  loaning  them  and  giving  over  into  their  hands. 
And  I  think,  because  of  this,  that  there  will  be  opportunities  for  them 
to  become  educated  along  the  different  lines  that  are  provided  for 
them  in  this  bill;  that  it  will  be  possible  for  them  without  and  handi- 
cap at  all  to  bring  and  deposit  at  least  10  per  cent  of  the  purchase 
price,  which  will  give  them  a  more  individual  interest  in  the  proposi- 
tion itself  than  it  would  if  they  had  practically  no  interest.  A  man 
could  come  and  take  a  farm  and  take  the  crop  off  the  first  year,  and 
he  can  deteriorate  the  value  of  that  property  very  materially  and  go 
away  and  take  his  crops,  and  you  are  out  the  money,  if  they  were  so 
inclined.  Now,  it  doesn't  happen  very  often,  but  in  my  experience  it 
does  happen — in  the  goodness  of  their  hearts  they  have  no  intention 
of  doing  it  at  all  when  they  enter  into  this  contract  with  us,  but  I 
have  found  that  the  more  you  can  get  a  man  interested  personally 
with  you  in  any  business,  the  better  is  his  ability  to  execute  that  work. 
So  I  suggest  that  that  be  made  to  read  10  per  cent  instead  of  5  per 
cent. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  do  you  require  under  your  plan  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  We  have  no  definite  plan  for  the  loaning  fund  of  our 
church.  It  has  been  left  largely  to  my  recommendation.  Often  I 
meet  people  that  I  don't  have  to  give  a  5  cent  piece.  They  say, 
"  Mr.  Hansen,  we  don't  want  any  money ;  all  we  want  is  an  opportu- 
nity to  get  in  right.  We  know  that  you  are  in  a  position  to  advise  us 
and  to  help  us  and  to  get  us  started  in  right  so  that  we  are  not  going 
to  be  held  up — using  their  phrase — by  any  real  estate  stunt,  or  any- 
thing of  that  kind.  You  help  me  get  in  right  and  that  is  all  I  ask  of 
you.  I  am  willing  to  fight  my  own  battle  and  get  through  it."  And 
some  don't  want  anything  but  advice  and  the  right  opportunity. 
Others  want  only  a  small  amount,  $150,  $500,  $1,000;  some  of  them 
come  with  four  or  five  or  ten  thousand  dollars,  and  all  along  the  line, 
so  that,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  dont'  have  any  restrictions.  It  depends  en- 
tirely upon  the  case,  which  has  a  personal  investigation  and  receives 
personal  recommendation  from  me  to  my  committee,  so  we  have  no 
fixed  amount,  but  it  depends  altogether  on  each  case. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Then,  you  do  put  men  on  without  any  capital 
at  all,  if  they  are  honest  and  reliable  and  industrious? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes;  we  often  do  that,  very  often.  As,  for  example, 
refugees  from  Mexico.  But  I  would  say  this :  That  my  greatest  suc- 
cess has  been  where  they  have  been  pretty  well  interested  themselves. 
I  lost  quite  a  few  when  we  started  this  financial-assistance  plan.  I 
lost  a  few  of  them  in  the  goodness  of  my  heart  and  my  endeavor  to 
help  them,  but  I  soon  found  that  my  success  was  not  measured  by  the 
number  of  people  that  I  could  assist,  but  the  success  that  I  could 
cause  them -to  enjoy. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  character  of  land  do  you  put  them  on— -pul (In- 
lands, or  State  lands,  or  private  lands! 


HOMES  FOK  SOLDIERS.  733 

Mr.  HANSEN.  It  varies  entirely  with  the  circumstances.  Some- 
times we  help  them  out  to  a  new  reclamation  or  different  places  out 
of  the  State;  sometimes  we  just  put  them  onto  new  lands.  Some  of 
them  want  to  go  where  the  lands  can  be  obtained  cheap ;  they  want 
to  get  down  on  the  ground  floor;  they  want  to  get  in  with  all  the 
advantages  and  help  build  it  up.  Others  are  married  and  intermar- 
ried and  their  social  and  other  connections  are  such  that  they  don't 
want  to  go  away  from  their  own  settlement.  They  want  to  branch 
out,  but  they  also  want  to  be  sort  of  a  leader  in  the  community  where 
they  are. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  What  I  am  trying  to  get  at  is,  do  you  put  them  on 
there  as  tenants,  or  do  you  put  them  on  there  with  a  view  of  acquir- 
ing homes  of  their  own? 

Mr.  HAN  SEN.  Ownership  is  the  only  way.  Tenancy  is  a  failure, 
and  it  will  be  just  as  hard  to  get  people  to  be  successful  tenants  as 
it  is  to  get  them  to  work  for  day's  wages.  They  want  to  own  their 
own  lands. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  agree  with  you  on  that.  So  that  when  the  applicant 
conies  to  you  for  the  purpose  of  acquiring  a  home  or  land  to  farm, 
your  efforts  are  to  get  him  located  somewhere  where  it  will  be  ac- 
ceptable to  him  ? 

Mr.  HAN  SEN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Where  family  relations  and  community  relations  are 
agreeable  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  We  have  to  consider  all  those  things. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  you  don't  have  any  particular  colony  to  put  him 
in,  do  you? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  No. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  find  something  that  is  acceptable  to  him  and  help 
him  on  it  ?  Is  that  it  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  you  make  loans  to  him  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes ;  we  make  loans  to  them. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Is  that  a  church  fund? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  That  has  been  a  church  fund,  which  was — you 
might  be  interested  to  know  this,  that  because  of  our  interest  and 
the  limited  overhead  expense  that  we  have  in  connection  with  this, 
and  the  degree  of  success  which  has  followed  our  people,  in  this 
recent  move,  wras  brought  about  by  some  philanthropist  or  some 
gpod-hearted  capitalist,  who  left  to 'the  church  an  estate  which  was 
immediately  matched  by  the  church  and  is  used  for  this  loaning  pur- 
pose. That  was  really,  gentlemen,  the  impetus  of  this  particular 
move. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Have  you  acquired  lands  with  that  fund  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  We  buy  no  lands;  we  help  them  buy  teams,  harness, 
wagons,  if  necessary.  To  one  man  we  will  loan  a  little  money  to 
acquire  his  land ;  another  will  make  his  own  arrangements  for  land 
and  we  buy  him  his  team  and  outfit  and  equipment.  Others  possibly 
have  all  they  need,  and  all  there  is  for  us  to  do  is  to  go  to  the  store 
and  arrange  a  year's  supply  for  them,  seeds,  and  so  on,  and  help 
them  with  implements  until  they  can  get  a  crop  out  and  start  it. 
Our  work  is  very  much  varied  in  that  line. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Does  the  church  own  large  areas  of  land  ? 


734  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  HANSEN.  No;  we  have  no  lands  at  all  that  we  are  selling  to 
anybody. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Only  just  as  you  acquire  them  for  the  individual  ap- 
plicant as  they  come  along  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  We  have  800  bishops,  I  was  going  to  say,  who  are 
all  anxious  to  have  enterprising  men  come  to  them,  and  they  do 
anything — furnish  supplies  and  cooperate  with  them — to  get  them 
interested. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  How  long  has  this  plan  been  in  operation  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  As  outlined  here,  as  already  stated,  it  is  nearly  four 
years  old  now. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  particular  plan? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  That  I  have  just  outlined,  where  we  have  started  to 
be  of  help,  have  made  an  organized  effort  to  help  our  people  back 
to  the  farm.  It  was  brought  about  by  the  influx  to  the  city  and  the 
lagging  on  the  farm.  Our  cities  became  overpopulato.d  with  men 
that  understand  the  art  of  agriculture,  and  the  lands  were  lying 
dormant  and  there  was  a  move  on  to  get  them  from  the  cities  back 
to  the  farms,  and  the  time  when  this  effort,  as  I  say,  especially  con- 
centrated with  this  organization,  was  made,  was  about  four  years  ago. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  you  have  had  your  colonization  plan  going 
for  years? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Ever  since  we  started  to  settle  in  Utah  under  very 
close  supervision.  This  assistance  plan  is  an  addition  to  our  old 
plan,  you  know. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Sort  of  an  evolutionary  development  of  it? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes;  trying  to  keep  up  with  the  times. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Now,  will  you  go  ahead  with  the  amendments  that 
you  have  to  further  suggest? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  On  line  15,  of  the  same  page,  page  4,  it  reads.  "  at 
the  rate  of  4  per  centum  per  annum,  payable  annually,"  for — where 
does  it  say  that  it  is  for  a  period  of  40  years?  The  amendment  that 
we  suggest  in  that  line  is  that  it  be  4  per  cent  for  the  first  20  years 
and  5  per  cent  thereafter,  for  this  reason :  You  have  helped  them  to 
get  a  start,  and  20  years  is  long  enough  to  help  anybody  get  a  good 
start.  You  are  making  the  terms  very  liberal  and  doing  everything 
for  him ;  his  farm  has  increased  in  value;  you  hold  the  title;  the  title 
is  not  yet  in  his  name,  and  if  he  is  anxious  to  get  the  title  in  his  name, 
he  can  go  to  the  Federal  loan  bank  or  other  banks  and  borrow 
money,  easy  enough  to  pay  you  up,  or  he  can  continue  with  you  if 
he  desires  along  the  same  plan.  I  would  make  it  optional  for  him, 
whether  he  desires  to  remain  with  you,  you  holding  the.  title  until 
you  get  through,  until  he  redeems  it ;  or  he  has  the  privilege  at  the 
expiration  of  20  years  of  redeeming  or  taking  title  in  his  own  name 
and  going  to  the  bank  and  borrowing  more  money  if  he  chooses, 
and  that  this  land  will  permit,  and  buying  live  stock  or  making 
such  improvements  that  will  be  worth  enough  to  him  so  that  he 
can  afford  very  well  to  pay  the  difference  between  5  per  cent  or  4 
pei-  cent  and  the  rate  of  interest  lie  would  have  to  pay  otherwise. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Wouldn't  you  give  him  the  option  of  paying  out 
earlier  than  20  years? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes ;  decidedly  so. 

Mr.  FERIMS.  What  option  would  you  give  him? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  735 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  I  would  put  a  clause  in  the  contract  providing  that 
he  could  take  it  up — there  could  be  no  objection  on  the  part  of  the 
Government,  I  would  give  him  the  option  to  redeem  the  whole  thing 
and  take  the  title  over  in  his  name  at  any  time  that  he  can  and 
desires  to  do  it. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  After  paying  out  in  full  ? 
Mr.  HAXSEX.  Yes. 
Mr.  FERRIS.  At  any  time? 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  At  any  time;  yes,  sir.  That  creates,  then,  a  fund — 
or  the  money  is  back  in  the  Treasury,  and  as  we  use  it  for  a  revolving 
fund,  then  somebody  else  could  have  the  benefit  of  it  all  the  quicker 
and  could  immediately  take  it  and  go  on. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  And  if  it  was  less  than  4  per  cent,  it  would  be  an  in- 
centive to  him  not  to  get  title,  because  that  is  cheaper  than  he  could 
get  money  any  place  else,  and  cheaper  than  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  has  to  pay  on  its  own  bonds. 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  We  don't  know  what  the  rate  of  interest  will  be 
40  years  from  now. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And,  of  course,  all  the  years  that  that  title  has  been 
held,  the  property  is  taxed  free.  There  is  another  consideration 
that  will  keep  him  from  acquiring  title. 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  Well,  I  don't  know.  That  is  a  point  that  I  have 
not  gone  into,  but  we  always  ask  them  to  pay  the  taxes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  do  in  your  lands,  but  so  long  as  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment withholds  title,  and  until  such  time  as  title  is  finally  granted, 
there  could  not  be  any  taxes  on  Government  property. 
Mr.  TAYLOR.  There  could  be  taxes  on  the  improvements. 
Mr.  FERRIS.  Yes;  but  I  am  speaking  of  the  land. 
Mr.  HAXSEX.  Is  that  just  exactly  what  we  want  to  convey? 
Mr.  FERRIS.  That  is  the  logical  sequence.     Now,  whether  you  want 
to  modify  that  is  the  question.     You  know  the  Government  doesn't 
allow  its  property  to  be  taxed  in  any  event. 
Mr.  HAXSEX.  No. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Either  public  buildings  acquired  or  land,  and  as  long 
as  these  titles  were  withheld  from  these  applicants  without  the  bill 
making  any  definite  recital  about  it,  of  course  the  land  would  be 
tax  free.  So  I  was  thinking  your  amendment  might  have  a  good 
deal  of  merit  in  it,  because  by  raising  the  interest  it  would  be  an 
additional  inducement  to  the  fellow  to  pay  out,  rather  than  go  on 
tax  free  at  a  low  rate  of  interest,  under  which  conditions  there  might 
come  a  time  when  it  would  be  unfair  to  the  surrounding  community. 
Mr.  HAXSEX.  Well,  that  was  my  idea. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  There  are  sections  in  my  State  now  that  are  in  that 
condition. 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  We  have  them,  when  they  sign  a  contract, with  us  for 
a  series  of  years,  come  back  at  a  much  earlier  period  and  say,  "I 
need  money.  I  can  make  more  money  by  buying  a  bunch  of  good 
sheep  or  a  bunch  of  good  dairy  cows,  something  that  can  bring  me 
more  interest,  and  I  want  to  take  up  my  loan.  I  want  to  get  title." 
And  we  go  over  and  make  arrangements  and  get  the  money. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  So  you  don't  think  it  would  be  a  wise  scheme  to  keep 
them  as  long  as  five  years  on  the  land  before  they  can  come  in  and 
pa}r  out  and  acquire  the  title  ? 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  I  wouldn't  have  it  under  five  years. 
133319—19 — —47 


736  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  want  to  make  them  become  permanent  settlers 
and  residents? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Would  five  years  be  too  long? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  No;  I  don't  think  so. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  You  stated  a  moment  ago  that  you  allowed  them  to 
get  title  any  time.  That  would  mean  one  day  or  one  month  or  one 
year. 

Mr.  HANSEN.  There  is  just  one  thought  in  connection  with  this. 
I  don't  know  the  detailed  route  of  work  that  the  Government  con- 
templates in  administration.  That  is  what  I  am  not  familiar  with. 
I  know  with  my  own  records  and  the  way  we  keep  them  that  we  are 
prepared  at  any  time  to  accept  their  money.  They  can  come  and 
get  their  title  at  any  time  they  choose. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  You  wouldn't  allow  him  to  sell  out  his  contract, 
would  you? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  No,  sir;  absolutely  not. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Except  to  another  soldier;  wouldn't  you  be 
willing  to  do  that? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Not  without  the  written  consent  of  the  Government. 
I  would  make  that  provision,  of  course. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  While  you  are  on  that  subject  of  40  years,  don't 
you  think  that  20  years  is  long  enough  to  pay  for  this  land  in  any 
case ;  that  if  a  man  can't  pay  for  it  in  20  years  it  isn't  a  good  invest- 
ment for  him;  that  20  years  is  as  long  as  it  could  reasonably  be 
expected  to  be  extended  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Well,  you  are  making  quite  a  gap  there,  you  know, 
for  a  young  man  that  doesn't  have  to  pay  taxes  for  40  years  and 
pays  4  per  cent  interest.  It  is  a  very  strong  inducement,  of  course, 
for  him  to  hold  on,  but  I  do  personally,  without  going  into  that  in 
detail — I  haven't  gone  into  that  so  much  in  detail,  but  personally  I 
can  imagine  no  case — in  our  own  connections  AVC  could  not  think  of 
20  years.  It  would  be  absolutely  beyond  our  limit,  you  know.  We 
don't  do  that.  Now,  what  the  capacity  of  the  Government  is  I  don't 
know. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Well,  the  question  is,  if  a  man  couldn't  pay  for  it  in 
20  years,  it  would  not  be  a  good  investment  for  him. 

Mr.  HANSEN.  That  is  the  natural  conclusion. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  What  is  the  length  of  term  on  which  you 
loan? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  It  varies.  Some  of  them  only  wanted  six  months, 
or  until  after  harvest;  another  wants  it  for  a  year,  another  five 
years ;  but  I  don't  think  that  in  any  of  our  instances  I  have  a  single 

ise  where  it  exceeds  five  years. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Of  course,  Mr.  Hansen,  in  a  number  of  States,  in  the 
disposition  of  their  State  lands  they  give  them  40  years. 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes,  I  know. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Quite  a  number  of  those  have  come  under  my  notice. 

Mr.  HANSEN.  I  didn't  attempt  to  go  into  that.  I  took  it  for 
granted  that  that  had  been  arranged,  and  I  suggest  the  raise  of 
interest  after  40  years,  if  it  is  going  to  be  40  years. 

On  page  5,  line  16,  it  is  provided : 

That  no  such  loans  shall  exceed  GO  per  centum  of  the  cost  of  the  live  stock 
and  equipment  purchased. 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  737 

I  think  that  should  be  raised  to  75  per  cent.  Live  stock  is  an 
awfully  good  security.  Bankers  will  allow  a  cattleman  to  go  out 
and  draw  on  them  any  time  for  75  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  stock 
that  they  are  getting,  and  he  may  not  have  the  money  available  but 
may  have  splendid  security  that  would  satisfy  us,  and  I  think  that  I 
would  say  75  per  cent  instead  of  60  per  cent. 

Mr.  HERSMAX.  Just  on  that  point  there,  75  and  60  per  cent.  I  had 
expected  to  raise  that  same  question  in  the  committee — don't  you 
think  that  75  per  cent  is  entirely  too  much  on  machinery,  extending 
over  a  period  of  five  years?  Xow  it  is  not  too  much  on  cattle,  pro- 
viding for  the  increase  of  the  cattle,  of  course,  and  the  Secretary  will 
do  that,  but  don't  you  think  that  75  per  cent  is  entirely  too  much 
on  machinery  extending  over  a  period  of  five  years? 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  Xo;  I  don't  think  so.  His  machinery  has  to  be  kept 
up.  He  has  to  keep  it  up.  Of  course  it  deteriorates,  but  it  is  always 
replaced. 

Mr.  HERSMAX.  Now  your  own  experience  as  a  farmer  will  cer- 
tainly lead  you — I  would  imagine  it  would — would  lead  you  to  be- 
lieve that  any  machinery  that  is  five  years  old  is  not  worth  40  per 
cent  of  its  original  value. 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  Yes;  we  grant  that. 

Mr.  HERSMAX.  It  is  not  worth  30  per  cent  of  its  original  value.  I 
can't  imagine  any  machinery  we  could  buy  that  would  be  worth  30 
per  cent  at  the  end  of  five  years.  Then  why  isn't  75  per  cent  too 
much  to  loan  on  machinery  "unless  you  are  just  going  to  make  him 
a  gift  of  it  provided  he  fails?  That  is  not  so  with  cattle  and  the 
increase  on  cattle. 

Mr.  HAXSEN.  Well,  I  haven't  gone  into  that.  I  haven't  had  occa- 
sion to  test  that  out.  We  never  sustained  any  losses  that  way. 

Mr.  HERSMAX.  But  you  don't  extend  loans  on  machinery  five  years. 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  It  deteriorates  very  materially.  I  realize  that. 
There  are  a  lot  of  these  details  that  would  have  to  be  left  to  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  commissioners  or  the  party  on  the  job  at  the  time. 
The  moral  risk  with  a  man  is  often  much  more,  of  course,  than  the 
other. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  What  would  you  think  of  this  suggestion, 
Mr.  Hansen,  that  these  loans  on  equipment  and  stock  shall  not  exceed 
a  period  of  two  years,  and  then  be  subjected  to  renewal,  so  that  the 
Government  in  that  way  could  keep  close  track  of  it  ? 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  That  involves  an  awful  lot  of  work. 

Mr.  HERSMAX.  What  did  you  sajr? 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  That  involves  an  awful  lot  of  work,  renewing  and 
going  into  these  records:  and  I  think  that  your  provision  would  be 
safe  on  that.  I  wouldn't  ask  for  a  renewal  in  two  years. 

Mr.  BEXIIAM.  Mr.  Hansen.  I  would  like  to  ask  this  question.  We 
are  all  more  or  less  familiar  with  what  you  are  doing,  and  are  sure 
that  it  is  a  success.  Would  you  say  that,  in  the  main,  your  work  at 
present,  and  during  the  past  several  years,  is  with  the  project  plan 
as  suggested  in  the  Mondell  bill,  or  a  major  portion  of  it  individual 
ownership,  segregated  lands? 

Mi-.  HAXSEX.  Yes:  that  has  been  chiefly  it  on  ours. 

Mr.  HERSMAX.  What  has  been  chiefly  yours? 


738  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  Individual  work,  instead  of  large  collective  plans—- 
as I  understood  your  question. 

Mr.  BENHAJC.  Yes;  that  was  the  question. 

Mr.  HERSMAX.  You  tried  to  arrange  them  in  colonies? 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  The  origin,  of  course,  was  in  colonies,  always,  and 
until  we  get  established;  and  We  very  often  are  called  upon  to  go  out 
and  start  little  colonies.  We  take  as  many  families  as  we  can  get 
together,  and  put  out  there  and  let  them  grow  naturally  themselves: 
put  out  there  on  these  colonies.  But  the  old  plan,  of  course,  is  to  get 
your  families  started  in  a  community,  and  the  natural  growth  de- 
velops them. 

Mr.  BEX  HAM.  One  more  question,  Mr.  Hansen.  Do  you  find  the 
loaning  on  these  individual  holdings  any  more  risky  than  in  the  case 
of  colonies? 

Mr.  HAXSEN.  No;  we  have  lost  but  very  little.  The  fact  of  the 
matter  is,  I  don't  know  at  this  time  of  any  accounts  that  we  would 
lose  in  connection  with  that.  We  take  every  precaution,  the  details 
of  which  I  would  be  glad  to  submit  later,  in 'drawing  up  the  contract 
in  connection  with  that.  I  would  be  very  glad  to  be  helpful  in  a  lot 
of  details.  In  the  contract  we  make  provision  for  that.  Our  risks 
are  now  very  small.  You  don't  have  to  take  any  risks.  Let  them 
improve  the  ground;  the  land  is  increasing  in  value  all  the  time,  and 
the  live  stock  is  increasing  in  value,  and  if  you  will  get  them  to  start 
the  game  fair  with  you  and  play  the  game  fair,  you  are  absolutely 
safe.  It  is  one  of  the  safest  investments  we  can  possibly  loan 
money  on. 

Mr.  HEKSM\X:  Mr.  Hansen.  along  that  line  of  individual  colonies, 
as  is  proposed  in  this  bill,  that  is  quite  an  important  question.  I  imag- 
ine, under  consideration  before  this  committee,  and  your  testimony 
undoubtedly  will  carry  weight,  because  you  have  had  experience.  I 
wish  to  go  into  that  a  little  more  fully. 

I  wish  you  would  state  the  advantages,  if  you  thing  there  are  any. 
over  the  system  that  is  proposed  by  this  Mondell  bill,  of  assembling 
them  in  colonies,  to  have  the  advantages  of  churches  and  homes  that 
they  may  have  in  this  new  settlement,  or  loaning  money  to  individual 
persons,  to  select  as  they  may  see  fit  in  different  isolated  places  and 
maybe  in  the  State  or  near  their  own  homes.  I  wish  you  would  go  a 
little  more  fully  into  that,  because  it  is  a  question  that  has  bothered 
me  somewhat,  and  I  know  that  question  is  going  to  come  under  con- 
sideration when  this  committee  goes  into  committee  of  the  whole  in 
executive  session,  and  I  would  like  to  have  you  go  a  little  more  fully 
into  that  one  phase  of  it. 

The  CIIAIRMAX.  You  want  him,  Mr.  Hersman.  to  go  into  the  re- 
spective merits  of  the  colony  plan  and  the  segregated  unit  plan  ? 

Mr.  HERSMAX.  Yes:  he  has  had  experience.  He  says  he  has  loaned 
money  both  ways,  and  I  wrould  like  to  have  him  go  into  those  two 
features. 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  Now.  we  haven't  had  just  such  an  organized  effort 
as  is  proposed  in  detail  here  by  the  soldier-settlement  plan.  We  have 
never  gone  into  a  community 'with  this  recent  financial  assistance,  as 
is  proposed  in  this  plan,  and  opened  it  systematically,  laid  it  out, 
planted  it,  planned  and  arranged  for  little  community  centers,  such 
as  the  plan  that  was  submitted  for  my  consideration  yesterday  in  the 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  739 

office  of  Mr.  Davis,  our  Reclamation  Director  General,  provided.  We 
have  never  had  enough  money  for  such  an  experience;  we  have  never 
gone  into  it  as  he  has  planned. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  You  mean  as  represented  in  this  bill? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  As  represented  in  this  bill ;  but  I  believe  that  it  can 
be  made  a  great  success.  I  think  if  you  were  to  confine  it  exclusively 
to  that  plan  it  would  not  be  a  success,  but  I  do  think  that  that  is  one 
of  the  appealing  features  of  this  bill  and  will  be  very  helpful  and 
very  useful  in  developing  the  ideas  that  it  is  desired  to  obtain  and 
to  get  the  results. 

But  we  have  practically  the  three  stages.  If  Utah  is  to  participate 
in  this  limd,  I  would  suggest  something  like  this:  There  is  a  little 
community  at  Moceda,  on  Utah  Lake,  now  that  was  taken  up,  a 
project  that  was  planned — beautifully  planned  and  arranged — and 
they  came  from  the  East  out  there  and  started  to  colonizing  on  their 
own  methods;  but  it  was  not  a  success,  and  it  failed  and  went  into 
other  hands  and  failed  again.  It  is  in  the  hands  of  a  receiver,  and 
is  now  ripe  and  ready,  with  trees  growing  and  everything  all  ready 
to  jump  right  onto  and  put  in  a  little  money  in  developing  the  sys- 
tems— the.  water  systems.  That  would  be  the  first.  This  could  be 
started  within  30  days,  as  far  as  that  goes,  just  after  the  word  was 
said  to  go. 

Then,  there  we  have  another  project  that  could  be  started  as  soon 
as  the  boys  would  be  ready.  We  have  the  plan  there  to  build  a  reser- 
voir on  one  of  our  rivers  and  start  work  and  give  them  work  immedi- 
ately, all  of  the  preliminary  engineering  work  having  been  done. 
That  would  provide  for  largely  the  infiltration  method  in  colonies  of 
from  10 — but  in  colonies,  I  will  say,  of  from  10  to  15,  25,  75,  and  100 
families,  but  it  is  intermingled  with  other  families. 

Then  the  big  plan,  where  we  want  to  work  out  still  another  very 
large  project  on  the  reservation. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Let  me  interrupt  the  witness  for  a  moment.  Where  is 
this  word  "  infiltration  plan  "  as  applying  to  taking  up  lands — where 
does  that  come  from  ?  Who  is  the  sire  of  that  word  ?  To  me  it  is  a 
very  great  misnomer  and  a  very  displeasing  and  inappropriate  word. 
Who  is  it  that  fathers  and  applies  such  a  word  as  that? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  don't  know  the  etymology  of  it. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  The  "  infiltration  plan  " — to  me  it  is  all  out  of  joint. 
Do  you  know  the  origin  of  it  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  No ;  I  do  not.  It  has  been  a  little  confusing  to  me. 
Often  I  am  asked,  "Are  you  for  the  infiltration  plan  or  the  soldier 
settlement  plan?  "  and  I  can  really  not  draw  an  intelligent  distinction 
between  the  two  principles.  We  all  have  the  same  purpose  in  view, 
and  in  discussing  the  matter  a  little  further  I  always  find  we  are 
exactly  the  same,  whether  it  is  the  infiltration  plan  or  the  soldier 
settlement  plan.  Before  we  get  through  we  are  right  together  on 
the  t\vo  plans. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  don't  like  the  word  at  all. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Would  not  the  word  "  segregated  "  or  "  iso- 
lated "  be  more  expressive  ? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  It  seems  to  me  anything  wrould  be  more  intelligible 
than  that  word. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  might  say  "  individual." 


740  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  WHITE.  How  about  "  individual  segregative "  ?  Is  that  a 
good  word,  Mr.  Ferris  ? 

Mr.  FERRIS.  It  seems  better  to  me,  Mr.  White.  This  "  infiltration  " 
plan — I  don't  think  1  per  cent  of  the  country  will  know  what  that 
means. 

Mr.  MAYS.  It  sounds  like  it  ought  to  be  applied  to  a  water  system. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  I  have  heard  it,  but  it  don't  grow  in  grace  with  me. 

Mr.  WHITE.  It  doesn't  grow  in  your  country.  It  is  not  indigenous 
to  Oklahoma. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  spoke  of  a  certain  colony  plan  failure.  What 
was  the  reason  of  the  failure  of  that  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Well,  the  promoters  didn't  have  the  interests  of  the 
people  at  heart.  It  was  their  own  interests  that  they  had. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Who  did  not? 

Mr.  HAN  SEN.  The  promoters  of  the  big  project.  It  was  a  promo- 
tion scheme.  Somebody  was  to  make  a  lot  of  money  out  of  it,  and 
it  was  a  money-making  proposition  instead  of  getting  right  into  the 
germ  of  benefiting  the  community  and  the  people  there.  That  is 
whv  thev  failed,  and  why  anybody  should  fail. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  was  a  speculative  proposition  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Purely  speculative;  yes. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  a  question.  Don't  you  think, 
generally  speaking,  that  that  is  the  common  danger  that  threatens 
these  plans  s 

Mr.  HANSEN.  That  is  where  these  promotions  and  projects  seem 
to  have  to  battle  so  hard  for  approval  just  at  this  hour  and  at  this 
particular  time,  because  of  just  that  condition. 

Mr.  MAYS.  After  they  got  these  settlers  on  the  land  they  neglected 
to  pay  any  attention  to  them.  Isn't  that  the  trouble? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Well,  they  carry  it  for  a  while  and  then  their  money 
pans  out  and  they  get  discouraged,  and  the  bills  become  due,  and 
then  they  begin  to  close  in  on  the  people,  and  then  they  are  sold 
under  the  hammer,  and  some  others  think  it  is  a  good  thing  and  they 
try  it.  I  always  find  it  the  nice  thing  to  get  in  about  the  third  man 
on  a  proposition  like  that. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Do  you  undertake,  Mr.  Hansen,  to  keep  in 
close  touch  with  the  farmers  to  whom  you  loan  money,  to  see  them 
every  two  or  three  months  as  to  how  they  are  getting  along? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  It  has  been  my  duty  to  visit  them  and  to  advice  with 
them.  I  go  through  their  farms  and  take  an  inventory  every  year. 
I  go  out  and  walk  around  with  them  on  their  land,  look  over  their 
crops,  consult  with  them,  and  advise  with  them.  I  take  an  agri- 
culturist with  me  and  say  to  him,  "  I  have  got  some  boys  here  that  I 
want  you  to  take  care  of.  They  are  a  little  lame  in  this  direction. 
Bolster  them  up  and  give  them  personal  attention  and  put  them 
under  the  personal  supervision  of  our  agricultural  agent." 

In  some  instances  it  has  been  necessary  for  me  to  go  and  appeal 
to  the  educational  interests,  and  in  one  particular  instance  lately, 
where  my  young  men  were  getting  away  from  me,  I  had  to  have 
an  educator  come  out  on  tho  ground  and  live  with  tlu>  boys  and 
work  with  thorn  in  their  homes.  iret  up  early  and  go  and  see  how 
they  cared  for  their  horses,  how  they  hitched  them  up,  and  how 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  741 

they  tended  to  their  implements,  and  all  the  details  of  their  work; 
and  in  that  way  I  feel  that  that  has  been  the  big  point  in  my  success, 
because  of  the  individual  personal  interest  that  they  feel  with  me, 
and  naturally  if  you  loan  them  a  little  money  you  are  the  big  man, 
and  when  I  come  I  always  get  the  fattest  chicken  and  they  make 
quite  a  fuss  over  me. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Is  that  the  reason  you  like  to  go  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  That  is  one  of  the  reasons  I  like  to  go. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Mr.  Hansen,  I  was  called  out  of  the  room  and  did 
not  hear  your  preliminary  remarks — maybe  you  covered  this.  I  just 
want  to  ask  a  few  questions,  if  I  may.  Does  your  State  aid  men  to 
obtain  lands  and  develop  them? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  No;  only  in  this  connection:  The  State  has  appro- 
priated $1,000,000 — the  State  of  Utah — to  cooperate  with  this  move- 
ment. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  But  you  spoke  of  some  experience  you  had  in  the 
matter  of  placing  men  on  the  farms  and  the  development  of  the 
land. 

Mr.  HANSEN.  That  I  spoke  of  particularly  in  reference  to  our 
church — the  Mormon  Church. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Your  church,  then,  does  it  aid  men  to  go  on  the 
farms,  loan  them  money,  etc.? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  How  much  would  they  loan  them  ?  How  high  would 
they  go  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  It  varies.  I  believe  I  made  the  explanation.  I 
would  be  glad  to  make  it  again — we  have  no  stipulated  amount.  It 
varies  anywhere  from  what  we  call  good  advice  and  helpfulness  in 
getting  started  to  $2,000. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  go  as  high  as  $2.000  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes.  We  have  tried  to  hold  it  to  very  few  cases 
where  we  have  to  go  up  to  that. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Would  you  go  as  far  20  years  in  that  case? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  No;  five  years  is  our  limit.  That  is  as  far  as  we 
consider  our  limited  funds  will  permit  us  to  go. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  And  what  rate  of  interest  do  you  charge  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  We  usually  charge  7  per  cent.  Sometimes  in  extreme 
cases  we  have  charged  8  'per  cent,  but  7  per  cent  is  the  standard. 
It  is  not  the  interest  we  are  after.  We  just  want  them  to  feel  the 
obligation. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Now,  you  go  as  high  as  $2,000.  That  covers  the 
payment  on  the  farm  and  also  the  equipment — the  stock? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  It  is  applied  in  various  ways.  Sometimes  we  only 
use  it  for  equipment;  sometimes  for  stock  only;  sometimes  for  land 
only.  It  is  seldom,  if  ever,  that  we  attempt  to  start  them  out — we 
wouldn't  start  them  out  on  the  ground  floor  with  equipment  and 
everything,  amounting  to  $2,000,  without  any  resources  on  their  part 
at  all. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  As  I  understand  it,  then,  you  have  loaned  as  high  as 
$2.000  to  a  good  prospect? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  For  a  period  not  longer  than  five  years  and  usually 
7  per  cent? 


742  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Is  it  ever  any  less? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes;  and  if  a  man  comes  in  and  says  he  has  a  hard 
struggle  and  puts  up  a  plea  and  says,  "  I  would  like  to  have  my  in- 
terest abated,"  I  would  recommend — and  in  case  after  case — we  abate 
their  interest  as  long  as  we  can  get  the  principal  back  and  start  it 
over  again  and  start  it  to  rolling.  But  they  sign  the  note  for  7  per 
cent. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Do  you  believe  that  by  charging  such  a  rate  of  interest 
the  individuals  are  induced  to  pay  off  the  principal  sooner  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  That  is  the  purpose.  We  want  them  to  pay  the 
principal  and  get  the  money  back  for  somebody  else.  Often  after 
we  get  them  started  their  securities  are  enhanced  and  they  go  and 
get  the  money  for  a  little  less  interest  and  pay  up,  which  pleases  us 
very  much. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Now,  in  this  bill,  Mr.  Hansen,  you  call  attention  to 
page  3,  line  9,  that  $1,200,  you  think  that  should  be  increased  to 
$2,000? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes,  sir;  $2,500. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  And  would  you  leave  the  words  in  "  nor  in  excess  of 
three-quarters  of  the  cost  or  value  of  the  improvements  "  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  And  on  the  5  per  cent  initial  payment,  page  4,  line  9, 
you  would  increase  that  to  10  per  cent? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Now,  then,  the  initial  payment  of  the  soldier  would 
be  considerably  increased  by  the  increase  of  the  first  payment  from 
5  per  cent  to  10  per  cent  and  the  increase  indicated  from  $1.200  to 
$2,000  in  the  loan  and  the  increase  indicated  on  page  5,  line  10,  from 
$800  to  $1,500. 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  As  it  is  now,  it  has  been  estimated  that  the  soldier 
would  approximately  have  to  pay  $1,200  as  an  initial  payment  on  all, 
covering  all,  so  that  would  increase  it  materially. 

Mr.  HANSEN.  You  say  he  would  have  to  pay '$1,200? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  It  has  been  estimated  here  by  Mr.  Davis  and  others 
that  approximately  the  soldier  would  have  to  pay  $1.200.  Of  course, 
this  would  increase  that  amount  of  the  initial  payment  of  the  soldier. 

Mr.  HANSEN.  You  will  find  so  many  conditions  confronting  you, 
your  local  committeemen  in  taking  these  boys,  that  they  will  find  their 
own  level  of  safety.  We  all  have  just  one  purpose  in  view.  We  want 
to  help  them  and  we  want  to  adopt  those  measures  which  in  the  main 
will  be  the  guiding  post,  the  mile  post,  to  those  who  are  making  this 
contract  with  them.  But  you  will  see,  and  I  will  see,  as  we  come  in 
contact  with  them,  that  it  will  be  necessary  to  make  personal  investi- 
gation and  examination  of  those  boys  before  you  will  give  any  of 
them  anything,  I  don't  care  what  it  is. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  mean  before  you  make  your  selection? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  I  would  have  to  meet  them  in  order  to  say  how  much 
we  should  give  them  and  just  how  much  we  will  give  them  in  our  own 
district,  not  barring  anybody. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Now,  Mr.  Hansen,  some  of  the  boys  would  be  ex- 
cluded from  this,  then  ? 


HOMES   FOE   SOLDIERS.  743 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  I  can't  imagine  anybody  that  would  be  excluded, 
if  they  have  the  purpose  of  this  bill  in  mind  to  be  agricultural  bene- 
ficiaries and  to  get  a  home  of  their  own.  The  law  is  big  enough  and 
broad  enough  to  help  anybody  that  has  the  purpose  of  this  bill  at 
heart,  and  what  the  Government  could  not  do  the  State  will  do,  and 
what  the  State  won't  do  the  individual  would  do,  and  you  will  find 
help  rallying  around  you  to  such  an  extent  that  you  will  not  be  handi- 
capped for  means,  and  if  you  get  through  with  this  amount  success- 
fully they  will  be  only  too  "glad  to  double  the  appropriation  or  to  add 
to  it  as  you  succeed  with  the  purpose  of  this  bill. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Xow,  Mr.  Hansen,  would  a  man  be  excluded  be- 
cause he  didn't  appreciate  the  purpose  of  the  bill,  or  would  he  be 
excluded  because  he  would  not  be  considered,  we  will  say,  the  right 
kind  of  a  man  to  put  on  one  of  these  projects? 

Mr.  HAN  SEN.  Well,  now,  I  would  not  like  to  go  into  the  personality 
of  the  measure,  so  far  as  the  boys  are  concerned. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  said  that  sooner  or  later  the  Government  would 
reach  the  point  where  they  would  have  to  pick  their  men. 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  I  didn't  mean  just  that.  I  don't  mean  it  to  be  in- 
tended .that  way.  I  mean  this,  that  we  want  to  help  the  boy  who 
wants  to  help  himself  in  this  direction,  and  the  law  and  the  commis- 
sioners, the  men  having  the  details  of  that,  are  the  best  judges  as  to 
just  the  amount  and  just  how  and  just  where  they  will  be  helped  in 
this  direction.  Now,  I  wouldn't  say  that  I  would  debar  anybody.  I 
could  not,  would  not — it  is  not  intended  to,  but  I  think  that  the  meas- 
use  is  for  agricultural  purposes — for  getting  a  home  on  the  farm. 
Hundreds  of  the  soldiers  will  not  want  a  home  on  the  farm,  but  this 
is  the  farmer  boy's  day  just  now,  to  get  a  home  on  the  farm;  later 
on  the  day  will  come  for  the  boy  that  wants  to  enter  into  some  other 
enterprise  or  some  other  business,  that  doesn't  want  a  farm,  but  this 
is  the  farmer  boy's  day  and  the  farmer  boy's  bill  and  the  farmer  boy's 
appropriation  at  this  time,  as  I  understand  it. 

Air.  NICHOLS.  I  agree  with  you  about  that.  Would  you  say  that  all 
that  wrould  be  necessary  for  a  soldier  to  avail  himself  of  the  oppor- 
tunities in  this  bill — that  all  that  wTould  be  necessary  for  him  to  do 
would  be  to  show  his  honorable  discharge  from  the  Army? 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  No,  sir.  Gentlemen,  I  would  sooner  you  would  not 
question  me  too  strongly  on  that.  I  don't  know  that  I  am  prepared 
on  that  line. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Well,  it  is  very  important. 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  I  would  not  be  prepared  to  go  into  that  closely.  I 
haven't  gone  into  that  phase  of  it.  I  did  prepare  a  letter,  and  have 
submitted  it  before,  that  would  cover  that  point,  but  I  don't  think 
it  is  opportune  just  now  to  do  that.  I  made  a  report  on  that  in 
writing;  but  I  will  say  in  brief,  in  answer  to  that  question,  that  I 
have  already — thinking  in  my  own  mind  that  I  might  be  asked  to 
make  an  expression  on  that.  I  wyrote  this  among  other  things.  This 
is  one  clause  of  my  recommendation,  and  I  think  a  copy  of  it  is 
on  file. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  On  file  with  the  committee? 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  Not  on  file  with  this  committee.  I  didn't  think  it 
pertained  to  this,  but  I  think  the  Secretary — I  don't  know  but 


744  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

what  the  Secretar}" — I  know  that  my  own  people  have  it  at  home. 
[Reading :] 

But,  naturally,  all  can  not  be  considered  exactly  on  the  same  basis,  and 
classifications  must  necessarily  be  adopted,  and  I  suggest  possibly  three  head- 
ings, namely : 

First.    The  immediate  farm  owner  and  operator. 

Second.  The  project  developer. 

Third.  The  educational  agricultural  employment. 

Then  I  have  gone  on  and  specified  the  three  different  headings 
and  classified  the  boys,  and  that  is  about  all  the  way  I  would  handle 
them  if  they  should  be  brought  to  me  and  if  I  were  an  examining 
board  or  an  examining  committee.  I  think  for  the  protection  of  the 
boys  and  for  the  best  interests  of  all  concerned  I  would  necessarily 
have  to  make  a  classification.  I  could  not  give  the  same  boy  that 
had  been  an  agriculturist  and  that  was  considered  a  success  and  had 
had  the  experience — I  could  not  give  him  the  same  consideration — as 
another  one  that  had  never  had  any  experience  on  the  farm  at  all, 
had  never  been  on  a  farm,  but  he  wants  to  go  on  a  farm  and  he  would 
like  to  go  on  a  farm.  I  could  not  put  those  two  fellows  side  by  side 
and  handle  them  exactly  the  same  way  just  at  the  same  time. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Have  you  had  any  experience  in  taking  city-trained 
men  out  onto  farms  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes;  a  great  deal.  So  much  so  that  now  I  won't 
take  a  city  boy  out  on  the  farm  until  I  go  right  into  his  own  home 
and  get  acquainted  with  his  wife.  I  don't  usually  loan  to  single 
young  men ;  I  take  married  men,  and  I  want  to  know  what  kind  of 
a  wife  he  has  got,  how  he  is  mated  up,  and  whether  she  is  going 
to  be  true  to  the  life  and  whether  she  is  fitted  for  it  and  adapted  for 
it,  and  if  she  is  not,  then  I  don't  take  them.  In  my  work  I  only 
loan  1  out  of  every  8  or  10  that  comes  to  me,  and  they  don't  take 
any  exceptions.  At  first  they  did,  but  I  have  got  my  little  plans 
and  my  own  individual  way  so  arranged  that  I  don't  have  any 
trouble.  I  don't  want  them  to  go  unless  they  are  fitted  for  it. 

Mr.  MAYS.  After  you  have  selected  them,  they  have  been  satisfied 
as  a  rule? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes,  sir ;  I  don't  have  any  trouble  with  that.  Occa- 
sionally the  best  of  us  will  get  wrong. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Would  you  recommend  that  the  Government,  in 
putting  into  operation  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  should  go  as 
closely  into  the  conditions  of  the  applicant,  the  soldier  applicant — 
would  you  recommend  that  the  Government  agents  should  become 
acquainted  with  his  wife  and  his  home  conditions  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Not  necessarily.  That  is  just  my  own  way.  You 
would  have  to  adopt  your  own  methods  as  a  council  of  good  men, 
and  I  would  not  adopt  a  plan  until  I  had  met  in  council  with  the 
best  men  that  I  could  possibly  get,  and  I  would  not  suggest  that 
you  adopt  my  plans.  These  are  just  personal  views,  and  I  realize, 
the  danger,  and  right  there  is  where  you  are  going  to  have  your 
greatest  trouble,  if  I  dp  say  it.  I  would  not  want  to  go  on  record 
just  now  as  recommending  any  one  particular  measure,  because  T  :im 
not  prepared  to  do  so.  I  have  not  had  to  deal  with  those  boys  as 
you  will  have  to  deal  with  them. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  But  you  don't  believe  that  an  honorable  discharge 
from  the  Army  would  be  sufficient  guaranty  that  they  should  be 
placed  on  a  farm? 


HOMES  FOB  SOLDIERS.  745 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Xo;  if  I  had  to  answer  that  }Tes  or  no  I  would  say 
it  was  not  sufficeint  guaranty  for  the  maximum  amount.  Everyone 
would  come  under  one  of  these  classifications,  as  near  as  I  could 
tell. 

Mr.  XICHOLS.  Now,  Mr.  Hansen,  in  your  summing  up  that  you 
made — in  your  statement  that  you  read — I  just  heard  part  of  it  as 
I  came  in — regarding  the  problem,  did  you  mean  the  problem  of 
developing  the  land,  the  land  problem,  or  the  soldier  problem? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  I  don't  remember  just  what  sentence  you  have 
reference  to,  but  there  are  both  propositions. 

Mr.  XICHOLS.  What  problem  were  you  referring  to  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  I  don't  remember  the  phrase.  Can  you  tell  me  the 
thought  that  I  was  expressing?  Wait  just  a  minute,  maybe  I  did 
use  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  used  the  word  "  problem  "  several  times. 

Mr.  HAN  SEN.  I  don't  remember  it  just  now. 

Mr.  XICHOLS.  Well,  Mr.  Hansen,  I  will  ask  you  this  question :  Ac- 
cording to  the  statements  that  have  been  made  before  the  committee, 
probably  less  than  100,000  of  the  soldiers  who  participated  in  this  re- 
cent war  could,  under  the  authorized  appropriation  of  this  bill,  take 
advantage  of  the  opportunities  that  are  offered. 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  XICHOLS.  Now,  do  you  think — if  you  are  considering  this  as  a 
soldier  problem,  do  you  think  that  the  Government  should  attempt  to 
aid  soldiers  who  were  in  this  war  or  were  in  any  war  to  own  a  home 
any  place,  or  do  you  think  it  should  be  confined  to  the  farm  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Absolutely  to  the  farm,  without  any  reservation. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Well,  then,  do  you  believe  that 'the  Government 
should  enact  legislation,  the  price  of  which  will  be  $500,000,000  to 
aid  only  about  100.000  soldiers,  when  there  are  4,500,000  in  all? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  I  think  $500,000,000  is  a  very  intelligent  estimate  for 
the  experimental  stage  of  this  work. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  think  it  will  require  more  afterwards? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  I  think  later  on  you  will  be  glad  to  give  more,  if  it 
is  carried  on  successfully. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Well,  how  many  soldiers  do  you  think  will  avail 
themselves  of  this  opportunity?  Have  you  any  idea  about  that? 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  I  could  only  judge,  as  I  say,  by  my  own  applications. 
I  find  when  I  come  to  handle  them,  that  a  very  small  amount  will  go 
on  the  farm,  and  the  real  purpose  of  it  would  be  such  that  the  boys 
would  not  want  to  avail  themselves — not  as  many  when  it  gets  right 
down  into  the  detail  of  it.  will  want  to  avail  themselves  of  it  just 
now — not  as  many  as  we  think.  And  I  think  that  if  more  is  needed 
it  will  be  forthcoming.  I  am  not  a  bit  worried  about  the  amount  that 
will  be  available  for  the  worthy  applicants  among  the  soldiers  for 
this  purpose,  either  from  the  State  or  otherwise. 

Mr.  XICHOLS.  Xow.  Mr.  Hansen,  I  come  from  a  city  that  sent  a 
good  many  thousand  soldiers  to  the  war,  the  same  as  other  cities  of 
the  country  did,  and  supposing  the  citv  man,  born  and  bred,  we  will 
say.  a  boy' who  went  into  this"  war.  felt  that  he  would  like  some  as- 
si-tunce  from  the  Government  to  purcha<=e  a  home  in  the  city;  do 
you  think  the  Government  should  assist  him? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Xo.  sir;  not  at  this  sta<re.  This  bill  is  not  intended 
for  that. 


746  HOMES  FOP.  soLniKits. 

The  CIIAIKMAX.  Are  there  any  further  questions,  gentlemen? 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  would  like  to  ask  one  or  two  questions. 

If  I  understand  you,  I  gather  from  all  you  say  that  you  give  great 
consideration — now  I  am  asking  you  from  the  standpoint  of  your  ex- 
perience, not  what  You  would  do  if  you  Avere  connected  Avith  this,  but 
what  you  are  actually  doing — I  gather  from  all  you  say  that  you  give 
great  consideration  to  the  personal  equation. 

Mr.  HAM  SEN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WHITE.  The  personal  equation  of  the  individual? 

Mr.  HANSEX.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WHITE.  And  I  also  gather  from  what  you  say  that  you  don't 
take  a  boy  from  the  city  out  into  the  country  now — that  is,  after  hav- 
ing had  the  experience  that  you  have  had — that  is,  not  frequently. 

Mr.  HAXSEN.  Excuse  me,'  may  I  make  myself  a  little  clearer  on 
that  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  Well,  I  will  state  the  question  better.  It  is  hardly  Avell 
stated.  Your  position  \vas  that  you  are  more  successful  with  a 
country-raised  boy — a  boy  that  is  familiar  with  agricultural  condi- 
tions in  placing  them  on  farms? 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  Our  conditions  possibly  \vant  a  little  explanation 
there.  Most  of  our  boys — many  of  them — come  from  the  country  to 
the  city.  They  come  in  and  get  acquainted  and  go  to  schools  and 
colleges,  and  they  get  acquainted  with  the  girls  and  they  marry  and 
stay  in  the  city  and  settle  down.  They  have  acquired  the  art  of  agri- 
culture ;  they  know  how  to  farm. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Those  are  the  boys  that  you  are  talking  about  ? 

Mr.  HANSEX.  Those  are  the  boys  that  I  \vant  back  on  the  farm, 
whether  single  or  married — those  that  understand  the  art  of  fanning. 

Mr.  WHITE.  That  is  a  good  ansAver. 

Now  I  Avant  to  ask  you  another  question.  I  gather  from  what  you 
say  that  the  experience  that  a  boy  gets  on  a  farm,  an  experience  that 
you  yourself  know,  as  well  as  anyone,  that  no  one  can  acquire  in  a 
week  or  two  or  a  month  or  two  or  a  year — in  other  Avords,  it  takes  a 
little  brighter  man  to  be  a  farmer  than  to  do  almost  anything  else 
in  the  Avorld;  maybe  I  am  a  little  extravagant  there — and  that  that 
knoAvledge,  that  knoAvledge  of  detail,  that  concrete  knowledge  ac- 
quired in  that  way,  is  an  equipment  that  gives  him  a  great  advantage 
and  is  a  greater  guarantee  of  success  than  would  be  the  case  if  he  did 
not  have  that  knowledge. 

Mr.  HAN  SEN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Thank  you.  I  get  your  idea.  I  Avondered  if  I  got 
you  exactly  right. 

Is  the  question  of  congested  city  population  a  serious  question  in 
your  State? 

Mr.  HAXSEN.  It  is  very  serious  in  the  minds  of  our  people,  the 
Mormon  people;  very  serious.  The  more  I  come  east  and  the  more 
I  have  been  here  on  two  or  three  trips  lately  for  different  purposes, 
the  more  I  am  appalled  at  the  present  conditions  as  I  see  them.  I  am 
not  here  long  enough  to  get  the  condition  entirely. 

Mr.  WHITE.  NOAV,  I  will  ask  a  hypothetical  question — I  think  it  is 
very  fair. 

I  gathered  from  all  that  you  said  this  morning  that  it  is  a  very 
desirable  tiling  to  get  the  population  onto  the  fnnns.  to  develop  our 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  747 

•agriculture:  that  it  is  good  for  the  social  life  of  the  country.  Per- 
sonally I  am  in  full  accord  with  that  idea;  and  one  of  the  propositions 
that  was  brought  out  in  the  testimony  here  has  been  to  get  boys  back 
to  the  farm — that  is,  to  retain  more  of  our  agricultural  population.  I 
would  deduce,  if  it  is  a  fair  deduction — and  if  it  agrees  with  your 
analysis  of  the  subject  you  will  not  object  to  saying  so — that  it  would 
l)o  a  sound  proposition  to  keep  these  boys  who  are  equipped  for  farm- 
ing, who  have  the  qualities  they  have  acquired  on  the  farm — I  tvill  not 
mention  them,  because  I  like  to  be  brief;  you  know  what  they  are; 
we  all  know  what  they  are,  the  purpose  to  win;  and  that  have  the 
knowledge  gained  by  years  of  experience  and  the  judgment  that  is 
its  concomitant — I  want  to  ask  you  if  it  would  not  be  about  the  best 
thing  we  could  do  to  keep  those  boys  on  the  farm? 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  Yes,  sir. 

Mi-.  WHITE.  And  you  think  that  for  that  purpose  this  bill  is  ad- 
mirably adapted,  with  whatever  amendments  we  might  decide  to 
make,  for  that  purpose? 

Mr.  HAXSEX.    I  do. 

Mr.  WHITE.  And  it  might  be  better,  and  probably  more  beneficent 
in  its  effects  in  that  respect  in  keeping  the  good  boys  on  the  farm — 
that  is,  boys  that  are  equipped  and  qualified  to  do  this  work  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Now,  I  would  like  to  ask  you  one  more  question.  Are 
there  numerous  opportunities  in  your  State,  selective  opportunities? 
What  I  mean  by  that  is  where  a  young  man  could,  under  your  advice, 
and  under  the  advice  of  his  father  and  mother,  buy  a  small  tract  of 
land  with  good  promise  of  success  ? 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  Very  many. 

Mr.  WHITE.  There  are  a  great  many? 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Thank  you.  I  had  one  more  question — I  am  some- 
what bashful  and  I  don't  remember  so  well  what  it  was,  but  I  want 
it  asked.  Well,  aren't  there  a  great  many  cases  where  a  young 
soldier  coming  home — this  isn't  a  hypothetical  question,  it  is  a  fact — 
I  am  not  here  to  testify,  but  I  am  asking  about  conditions  that  nec- 
essarily exist  in  my  State  of  Kansas — I  am  from  Kansas — where 
apparently  this  soldier  has  been  unfortunate  for  a  hundred  different 
reasons  beyond  his  control  and  not  necessary  to  enumerate  here — 
fire,  tornado,  storm,  cyclone,  sickness,  lack  of  cattle,  plenty  of 
children,  and  so  forth — and  he  might  not  be  able  to  start  that  boy  in 
business.  Now,  I  am  going  to  ask  you  this  question,  would  it  be  an 
advantage  to  that  boy  to  have  the  counsel  of  his  father  and  o,f  his 
neighbors  in  making  that  selection? 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WHITE.  And  in  your  case,  in  the  case  of  your  supervision,  I 
want  to  ask  you  one  more  question — you  don't  charge  anything  for 
this  advice — you  stated  a  while  ago  in  substance  that  your  assistance 
extended  from  good  advice  to  the  loaning  of  a  thousand  or  two 
thousand  dollars.  You  don't  charge  anything  for  that  advice? 

Mr.  HANSEX.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Yet  that  advice  is  oftentimes  a  wonderful  asset.  We 
know  that  about  good  advice.  Good  advice  is  something  that  a 
great  many  persons  are  addicted  to,  but  it  is  a  good  thing  to  take. 


748  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

I  thank  you  very  much.  You  have  been  a  very  good  witness  and 
you  have  answered  my  questions  very  well,  and  I  hope  they  will  all 
appear  in  the  record. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Mr.  Hansen,  just  one  question.  You  have  in  your 
work  what  you  call  a  community  settlement,  where  your  people  have 
their  schools  at  a  central  place  and  sally  forth  to  work  on  the  farms, 
do  you, not,  to  some  extent? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MAYS.  How  does  that  work?  Would  you  mind  explaining 
about  that? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Will  you  just  repeat  that  question  again,  Mr.  Mays  ? 

Mr.  MAYS.  Well,  there  has  been  a  good  deal  said  here  about  the 
community  idea  of  this  bill. 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MAYS.  What  do  you  think  of  the  idea  as  expressed  in  the 
bill? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  I  think  the  community  idea  is  a  very  splendid  one — 
very  splendid. 

Mr.  MATS.  What  are  some  of  the  advantages  of  that  plan? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Some  of  the  advantages  are  these,  that  instead  of 
allowing  them  to  pick  all  over  the  territory  and  get  scattered  all 
over  a  new  country  they  can  be  concentrated  at  one  point;  the  ex- 
pense of  operation,  the  road  expense,  the  canal  expense,  and  the  dif- 
ferent expenses  are  minimized;  the  advantage  of  social  functions 
are  very  materially  enhanced,  because  they  can  go  to  school  and  they 
can  have  better  schools  and  more  of  them,  and  more  and  better 
social  functions,  and  better  facilities  and  advantages  in  every  way. 
There  is  a  community  spirit  and  cooperation  with  the  people  that 
get  close  together  and  understand  and  organize  themselves  and  put 
theiv  local  leaders  where  they  can  do  something,  and  then  they  get 
the  farm-bureau  thought,  and  they  develop  and  help  and  strive  to- 
gether and  cooperate,  and  raise,  for  instance,  one  particular  breed 
of  cattle,  and  they  can  specialize  on  things.  They  get  into  a  com- 
munity where  they  will  be  known  for  some  particular  product,  and 
the  buyers  come  in  and  they  get  better  prices;  and  when  they  ship 
in  they  get  better  rates  and  every  advantage  that  you  could  imagine 
almost.  These  advantages  can  be  enjoyed  rather  than  to  go  out  and 
scatter  all  over  and  have  bad  roads  and  bad  ditches  and  bad  fences 
and  bad  schools  and  everything  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Do  you  have  any  trouble  with  the  evils  of  lonesome- 
ness  on  the  farm? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  No;  not  so  much  now.  Everybody  is  working,  co- 
operating in  that — the  Government,  the  State,  and  the  communities — 
and  the  cooperation  on  the  farm  in  the  last  two  or  three  years  espe- 
cially lias  been  marked  with  wonderful  progress;  and  the  whole 
spirit  in  the  world  to-day,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  learn,  espe- 
cially in  our  western  country,  is  to  mutually  benefit  and  help  each 
other  on  the  farm — cooperate  and  make  these  functions  desirable 
and  intelligent  and  educational  in  every  way. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  would  like  to  ask  one  question :  You  spoke  awhile 
ago  of  having  spent  some  time  with  Director  General  Davis.  You 
went  over  quite  fully  with  him  the  Lane  plan,  I  assume? 

Mr.  HANSEX.  T  would  not  call  it  fully. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  749 

Mr.  BEX  HAM.  You  spent  some  time  with  him? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes;  I  spent  some  time  looking  over  this  plan. 

Mr.  BEN  HAM.  Were  you  asked  to  come  here  and  testify  by  Mr. 
Davis  or  some  one  else  in  the  Interior  Department? 

Mr.  HAN  SEN.  I  don't  think  that  Mr.  Davis  has  any  idea  that  I 
am  on  the  floor  to-day  or  was  invited  here. 

Mr.  BEN  HAM.  Well,  then,  to  put  it  very  briefly,  Are  you  here  at 
the  expense  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  In  no  way.  I  was  invited  by  different  State  soldier 
committees  and  State  governors  to  come,  and  my  expenses  will  be  paid 
by  the  State.  I  dropped  everything  and  came.  I  said,  "  If  I  go,  I 
am  going  to  go  and  be  of  true  service  to  my  people  or  to  the  gen- 
tlemen for  whom  I  go."  There  is  no  one  who  has  got  any  strings 
on  me  in  any  way,  shape,  or  form. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Mr.  Hansen,  you  partly  answered  the  question 
that  I  asked  you  before,  but  I  would  like  to  get  it  definitely,  and 
that  is  this  question.  This  has  come  up  by  a  number  of  witnesses 
that  have  testified.  Do  }"ou  believe  that  the  provisions — if  you  have 
had  experience  enough  to  testify  along  those  lines — that  the  pro- 
visions of  this  bill  should  be  so  extended  that  the  individual  soldier, 
wherever  he  might  be,  could  select  a  parcel  of  ground  and  settle  down 
upon  it  without  following  out  the  provisions  of  this  bill  as  a  com- 
munity? Do  you  believe  that  he  could  select  a  farm  in  Utah  or 
New  Jersey  or  Delaware,  or  wherever  he  happens  to  be,  under  the 
same  conditions  of  extending  credit  as  this  bill  provides  for?  Do 
you  believe  that  would  be  practicable? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  Yes;  I  believe  the  intent  of  this  law  and  this  bill 
is  to  meet  those  emergencies  where  it  is  necessary.  For  instance,  if 
a  soldier  should  come  back  to  his  home,  and  his  social  connections, 
family  ties,  etc.,  are  such — his  father  is  overloaded  with  ground, 
and  he  says,  "  George,  I  have  got  too  much  ground ;  I  am  de- 
clining a  little  in  years,  and  I  would  like  to  give  you  40  acres  or  80 
acres  down  on  the  farm,  but  I  haven't  any  money  to  help  you  out 
with,  and  if  you  could  get  the  Government  to,  instead  of  sending 
you  out  on  one  of  those  new  projects,  to  let  you  take  that  and  give 
you  a  little  money  to  buy  some  material  to  build  a  home  and  to  im- 
prove that  place  and  make  yourself  an  honor  in  our  community 
and  ;* — and  to  go  the  old  gentleman  one  better — "  I  will  be  very 
glad  to  deed  you  that  property,"  I  think  the  spirit  of  this  bill  is 
intended  to  take  care  of  that  young  man. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  I  want  to  follow  that  out,  because  I  am  very 
anxious  to  get  your  opinion.  I  know  that  you  have  had  a  lot  of 
experience  along  this  line,  and  I  am  anxious  to  get  your  view. 

You  have  cited  one  instance  where  that  should  be  done.  Suppos- 
ing the  young  man  decided  that  he  wanted  to  go  2  or  3  miles  away 
where  his  father  did  not  have  any  land,  in  that  same  country,  in  that 
same  State,  or  in  that  same  county;  do  you  believe  that  the  Govern- 
ment should  extend  the  same  provisions  where  it  did  not  have 
facilities  for  supervising  that  particular  farm,  as  it  would  in  the 
colonization  plan?  Do  you  believe  the  United  States  Government 
should  give  him  the  same  provisions  of  payment  on  isolated  farms 
over  the  country  as  they  would  under  this  bill  ?  That  is  what  I  want 
to  arrive  at. 


750  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  HANSEN.  I  think  so,  with  conditions  of  sound  financial 
security  familiar  to  the  examining  board  and  the  same  spirit  of 
helpfulness  to  that  man,  and  he  may  be  out  there  alone  just  now, 
but  if  the  Government  helps  him  get  a  little  home  and  helps  him 
get  started,  it  will  be  inviting  for  others,  and  pretty  soon,  instead 
of  that  land  being  taxed  at  $5  an  acre,  it  will  be  increased  in  value 
and  wil  be  a  source  of  revenue,  and  he  invites  cooperation  in  that 
way.  I  don't  think  he  should  be  barred  because  of  that.  I  think 
the  spirit  of  it  is  that  he  would  be  glad  to  get  your  aid. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  I  want  to  ask  you  one  other  question.  Don't  you 
think  that  if  the  Government  extended  that  privilege  to  the  soldier 
of  making  individual  selection,  that  very  few  would  take  advantage 
of  the  opportunity  to  get  away  from  their  community  and  go  to  other 
larger  settlements? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  No ;  I  do  not,  for  this  reason,  that  in  going  out  into 
these  new  settlements  they  are  on  the  ground  floor ;  they  are  on  new, 
virgin  soil,  new  country,  and  the  very  intent  of  this  law  is  to  make 
it  so  inviting  that  the  boys  won't  be  forced  to  go  out  onto  the  farms, 
but  they  will  be  invited^  to  come  out  onto  these  projects,  and  that 
they  will  gladly  go  and  receive  the  cooperation  of  the  Government. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  There  is  one  other  question  that  has  been  in  my 
mind,  and  that  is  this :  You  have  had  a  long  experience  in  the  West 
and  have  had  experience  in  seeing  men  go  on  farms  and  seeing  their 
success  and  their  failures.  Doesn't  their  success  depend  practically 
upon  the  first  year  or  two  that  they  farm  their  land,  where  they  get 
a  good  crop  ?  Isn't  that  true  to  a  large  extent  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  It  is  true  to  a  large  extent;  but  you  know  out  West 
we  have  some  awful  good  stickers. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  I  know  that  is  very  true;  and  you  have  irrigation 
out  in  the  West,  that  they  don't  have  in  some  other  places.  Now, 
you  represent  the  church  and  you  extend  to  these  men — if  any  unfore- 
seen emergency  has  arisen  in  those  first  two  years  you  are  prepared  to 
help  that  man  out  to  the  extreme,  if  he  is  a  worthy  man  ? 

Mr.  HAN  SEN.  We  are  very  glad  to  do  it. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  And  don't  you  believe  that  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  should  make  a  provision  whereby  the  young  man  who 
has  shown  an  inclination  to  work  on  a  farm,  who  will  in  all  likelihood 
make  a  success  but  for  unforeseen  difficulties  that  have  arisen  by 
reason  of  loss  of  crop  or  sickness  that  may  have  overtaken  him,  and 
don't  you  think  the  United  States  Government,  which  was  anxious 
to  make  a  success  of  these  schemes,  of  this  colonization  plan,  and 
have  the  soldier  make  a  success  of  it — don't  you  think  that  they 
ought  to  extend  him  every  facility  possible  to  make  a  success? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  By  all  means.  As  I  understand  it,  the  whole  spirit 
of  the  thing  is  to  do  that. 

Mr.  HERSMAN.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  it  was  understood 
that  we  would  try  to  adjourn  punctually  at  12  o'clock  to-day  on  ac- 
count of  legislation  in  the  House.  Will  you  be  here  Saturday ,  Mr. 
Hansen  ? 

Mr.  HANSEN.  I  can  be,  if  it  is  your  pleasure  for  me  to  be  here. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Just  one  question;  it  will  only  take  a  couple  of  min- 
utes. I  merely  wanted  to  ask  what  yon  mean  by  this  segregated 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  751 

farm  proposition — a  man  buying  a  farm  in  any  part  of  the  country 
he  desires?  Do  you  mean  public  land  or  privately  owned  land? 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  Both. 

Mr.  XICHOLS.  On  privately  owned  land  would  you  help  him  ? 

Mr.  HAXSEN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  XiCHOLS1.  Would  the  Government  buy  the  farm  for  him  ? 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  Yes,  sir;  with  the  Government's  interests  properly 
safeguarded. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  And  if  it  was  a  $5,000  farm,  would  the  Government 
buy  it  for  him  ? 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  If  I  was  going  to  buy  privately  owned  farms,  I 
don't  know  that  I  would  go  into  it  quite  so  much.  At  the  same  time, 
that  would  be  at  the  discretion  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  And  then  you  would  make  loans  to  them  on  the 
improvements  ? 

Mr.  HAXSEX.  Under  the  discretion  of  the  commissioners. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  We  will  adjourn  now  until  Saturday  morning. 
Those  in  favor  of  the  bill  will  appear  then. 

Mr.  MAYS.  There  is  a  little  time  left  for  those  opposed  to  the  bill. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  Yes;  there  is  a  littte  time  left;  and  if  there  is 
some  one  here  they  may  use  that  time. 

(Whereupon,  at  12  o'clock  noon,  the  committee  adjourned  until 
10  o'clock  a.  m.  Saturday,  June  28,  1919.) 


COMMITTEE  ox  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS, 

HOUSE  or  KEPRESENTATTVES, 

Saturday,  June  28,  1919. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Nicholas  J.  Sinnott 
(chairman)  presiding. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  received  a  letter 
this  morning  from  Congressman  Hastings,  of  Oklahoma,  in  which 
he  transmits  to  me  a  bill  and  statement  concerning  the  same,  which 
he  would  like  to  have  incorporated  in  the  record.  Without  objection, 
that  will  be  done. 

(The  matter  referred  to  is  as  follows:) 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 
Washington,  D.  C.,  June  27,  1919. 
Hon.  X.  J.  SIXNOTT, 

Chairman  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands, 

House  of  Representatives. 

MY  DEAR  MR.  SINNOTT:  I  want  to  invite  attention  briefly  to  the  bill  intro- 
duced by  me  (H.  R.  6043)  entitled  "A  bill  to  provide  homes  for  soldiers,  sailors, 
and  marines,  and  for  other  purposes." 

It  contains  but  four  sections. 

Section  1  gives  the  honorably  discharged  soldier,  sailor,  or  marine  a  prior 
right  to  enter  public  lands  and  authorizes  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  for  a 
period  of  two  years  to  reserve  from  entry  any  part  or  portion  of  the  public 
domain  as  to  others.  It  also  permits  the  Secretary  to  waive  the  time  limit  of 
residence  on  said  homesteads  required  of  other  settlers. 

Section  4  gives  the  short  title  of  the  act  as  the  "  Soldiers'  home  act." 

Sections  2  and  3  are  amendments  to  sections  of  the  Federal  farm-loan  act 
approved  July  17,  1916. 

Paragraph  5,  section  12,  of  this  act  only  permits  loans  to  be  made  to  the 
amount  of  50  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  land  and  20  per  cent  of  the  value 
of  the  permanent,  insured  improvements.  These  loans  are  made  through  local 

133319—19 48 


752  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

associations.  The  bill  introduced  by  me  provides  that  loans  may  be  made  to 
honorably  discharged  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  to  the  amount  of  100  per 
cent  of  the  appraised  value  of  the  land  and  the  permanent,  insured  improve- 
ments thereon ;  but  it  divides  the  amount  borrowed  into  a  first  and  a  second 
loan.  The  first  loan  is  for  50  per  cent  of  the  appraised  value  of  the  land 
and  20  per  cent  of  the  appraised  value  of  the  permanent,  insured  improvements 
and  is  made  in  all  respects  the  same  as  to  any  other  borrower.  The  second  loan 
that  I  propose  would  be  up  to  and  not  in  excess  of  100  per  cent  in  the  aggre- 
gate  of  the  appraised  value  of  the  land  and  the  permanent,  insured  improve- 
ments. This  second  loan  is  secured  by  a  second  mortgage  on  the  land  and 
improvements  and  is  also  secured  by  an  assignment  of  the  insurance  of  the 
borrower,  taken  from  the  Government  under  the  war-risk  insurance  act  and 
acts  amendatory  thereof. 

Now,  as  to  the  first  loans,  the  notes  and  mortgages  are  used  by  the  farm- 
loan  banks  for  the  security  of  the  bonds  issued,  the  same  as  notes  and  mort- 
gages of  other  borrowers,  but  the  Government  issues  its  own  bonds  to  supply 
the  money  for  the  second  loans  secured  by  the  second  mortgages  and  insurance. 
These  bonds  shall  be  denominated  "  soldiers'  bonds."  By  this  plan  the  Govern- 
ment is  insured  against  loss  and  the  honorably  discharged  soldier,  sailor,  or 
marine  wishing  to  own  a  farm  gets  cheap  money.  He  is  permitted  to  borrow 
it  from  5  to  40  years,  payable  upon  the  amortization  plan,  just  as  other  bor- 
rowers under  the  Federal  farm-loan  act. 

In  addition,  this  bill  proposes  to  amend  section  15  and  permit  farm-land 
banks,  with  the  approval  of  the  federal  Farm  Loan  Board,  to  appoint  agents 
all  over  the  country,  through  whom  applications  for  loans  would  be  transmitted 
to  the  farm-land  banks.  This  would  not  necessitate  the  discharged  soldiers, 
sailors,  and  marines  joining  local  farm-loan  associations.  The  plan  does  not 
amend  the  Federal  farm-loan  act  in  any  other  particular,  but  leaves  it  in  full 
force  and  effect.  I  want  to  briefly  call  attention  to  the  advantages  contained 
in  this  bill. 

In  the  first  place,  it  will  enable  honorably  discharged  soldiers,  sailors,  and 
marines  to  borrow  money  for  a  long  time  at  a  low  rate  of  interest,  payable  in 
installments,  sufficient  in  amount  to  purchase  and  improve  a  home.  It  would 
permit  them  to  borrow  not  only  50  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  land  and  20  per 
cent  of  the  value  of  the  improvements,  as  provided  in  the  farm-loan  act,  but 
it  would  permit  them  to  borrow  the  full  value.  It  would  permit  them  to  look 
up  their  own  farms,  initiate  their  own  transactions,  and  buy  in  any  locality  in 
any  county  or  State  in  which  they  reside  or  desire  to  live. 

In  the  second  place,  it  would  not  require  any  additional  administrative  force 
to  carry  the  act  into  effect,  but  the  same  would  be  administered  by  the  farm- 
loan  banks  and  ttteir  employees.  This  would  avoid  any  delays  in  the  act  going 
into  practical  operation  and  would  insure  immediate  results.  Therefore  there 
would  be  no  additional  overhead  expense.  The  first  loans  will  be  treated 
exactly  as  any  other  loans.  The  money  to  make  them  will  be  obtained  by  the 
sale  of  farm-land  bonds. 

The  bill  proposed  by  me  provides  that  the  Government  shall  sell  its  own  bonds 
to  the  amount  of  the  second  loans  and  the  money  derived  from  the  sale  of  these 
bonds  is  to  be  loaned  through  the  farm-land  banks  to  honorably  discharged 
soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines.  These  Government  bonds,  denominated  "  sol- 
diers' bonds,"  are  to  be  nontaxable,  just  as  far  as  farm-land  bank  bonds  are 
nontaxable.  They  are  to  be  sold  at  not  to  pay  a  higher  interest  rate  than  4* 
per  cent  and  not  below  par.  The  second  loan  is  to  he  made  at  the  same  rate 
as  the  first  loan  and  upon  the  same  terms  and  conditions.  This  means,  of 
course,  that  these  loans  are  to  be  made  from  5  to  40  years,  payable  upon  the 
installment  plan,  the  same  as  the  first  loan,  but  the  notes  and  mortgages  for 
the  second  loans  are  not  to  be  used  as  security  for  the  farm-loan  bonds  issued, 
but  the  proceeds  are  to  be  used  in  the  payment  of  Government  bonds. 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  the  bill  proposed  by  me  will  not  depreciate  the 
farm-loan  bonds,  but  that  the  money  is  loaned  direct  from  (lie  Government  on 
the  second-loan  notes  and  mortgages  and  the  soldier's  insurance,  through  the 
farm-land  banks.  This  will  not  necessitate  another  examination  of  the  title  or 
an  additional  appraisement  of  the  land.  In  fact,  no  additional  work  will  be 
required,  becuse  the  loan  will  be  made  at  the  same  time  at  which  the  first  loan 
is  made. 

The  Government  will  be  adequately  secured,  because,  in  addition  to  the 
second  mortgage  given  to  secure  the  second  loan,  the  soldier,  sailor,  or  marine 
is  required  to  assign  the  insurance  that  he  has  in  force,  taken  out  from  the 


HOMKS    FOR   SOLDIERS.  753 

Government  through  the  war-risk  insurance  act  and  acts  amendatory  thereof. 
In  other  words,  as  additional  security,  the  Government  has  assigned  to  it  its 
own  insurance. 

As  the  notes  secured  by  the  second  loans  are  paid,  the  proceeds,  both  principal 
and  interest,  are  to  be  applied  to  the  payment  and  the  retirement  of  the  bonds 
issued  and  sold  by  the  Government  to  secure  money  with  which  to  make  these 
loans.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  Government  is  secured  in  every  respect  against 
loss.  These  amendments  will  provide  substantial  assistance  to  the  men  who 
made  large  sacrifices  and  were  willing  to  endure  everything  in  defense  of  our 
flag  and  country. 

The  returning  soldier,  appreciative  of  the  merited  recognition  of  a  grateful 
Republic,  will  take  possession  of  the  land  purchased  for  a  home,  repair,  add  to, 
and  erect  new  improvements  thereon,  as  well  as  clear  up  and  reduce  it  to  a 
state  of  cultivation.  All  this  will  add  greatly  to  the  value  of  the  land.  Good 
agricultural  land  in  my  State  in  the  last  five  years  has  increased  from  50  to  75 
per  cent  in  value.  Much  of  it  has  doubled  in  value.  This  is  doubtless  true  of 
farm  land  throughout  the  whole  Nation.  Every  industrious  home  owner  beau- 
tifies his  home  and  enhances  the  value  of  his  'land.  As  the  land  increases  in 
value  and  as  the  loan  is  reduced  by  amortized  payments,  the  second  mortgage 
held  to  pay  the  Government  bonds  will  become  better  security. 

In  addition,  the  amendment  to  section  15  provides  that  a  local  agent  may 
be  appointed  through  whom  these  applications  may  be  made  for  loans,  so  that 
the  honorably  discharged  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  will  not  have  to  become 
members  of  local  farm  loan  associations.  This  would  insure  immediate  con- 
sideration of  the  applications  and  expedite  action  upon  them  in  every  way. 

When  the  original  farm  loan  act  was  under  consideration  by  the  Banking 
and  Currency  Committee,  I  was  a  member  of  that  committee.  In  the  com- 
mittee and  on  the  floor  of  the  House  I  criticized  the  provision  requiring  that 
prospective  borrowers  become  members  of  local  farm  loan  associations  before 
being  able  to  secure  loans.  I  tried  to  have  the  same  amended  when  the  bill 
was  under  consideration  in  the  House.  I  called  attention  to  the  fact  then  that 
the  organization  of  local  farm  loan  associations  would  cause  vexatious  delays 
and  would  have  the  effect  of  defeating  the  purposes  of  the  act.  A  man  can 
not  wait  90  days  or  longer  for  the  formation  of  a  local  association  through 
which  to  apply  for  a  loan  after  he  purchases  a  farm.  He  must  know  with 
reasonable  certainty  immediately,  or  not  later  than  a  week  or  10  days.  If 
this  amendment  is  adopted,  local  associations  will  not  be  necessary,  but  agents 
would  be  appointed  throughout  the  country,  and  applications  may  be  made  and 
forwarded  through  them  to  the  farm  land  banks.  These  agents  in  a  short  time 
will  become  so  proficient  that  they  will  see  that  all  the  papers  necessary  to 
accompany  an  application  are  made  in  due  and  proper  form,  and  that  the 
abstract  accompanying  the  same  is  completed,  thus  avoiding  many  intermin- 
able delays.  There  is  no  reason  why  an  application  should  not  receive  favor- 
able action  within  10  days  at  most.  This  amendment  should  apply  to  all 
borrowers,  including  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines. 

Every  other  plan  that  I  have  heard  suggested  involves  the  creation  of  new 
bureaus,  with  a  vast  army  of  employees,  involving  too  much  overhead  expense. 

The  plan  presented  in  this  bill  does  not  involve  any  additional  expense,  but 
uses  tbe  machinery  of  the  farm  land  banks  to  come  to  the  aid  of  the  defenders 
of  our  country.  Instead  of  spending  money  upon  employees,  I  want  to  give  the 
benefits  to  the  man  who  made  sacrifices  that  liberty  should  not  perish  through- 
out the  world. 

I  can  not  too  strongly  emphasize  the  fact  that  this  plan  provides  money  for 
soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  to  purchase  land  in  the  locality  of  their  "choice 
and  allows  them  to  exercise  some  judgment  in  the  selection  of  it.  It  does  not 
necessitate  their  leaving  the  community  where  their  friends  and  loved  ones 
reside  in  order  to  secure  a  home. 

I  want  also  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  this  plan  provides  cheap  money  to 
them.  The  money  can  be  borrowed  from  5  to  40  years  upon  the  amortization 
plan,  providing  for  the  payment  of  1  per  cent  additional  annually  or  one-half 
per  cent  semiannually  as  a  payment  upon  the  principal  on  long-time  loans. 
The  returning  soldiers  of  our  country  are  only  asking  a  fair  chance,  and  this 
plan  gives  it  to  them.  It  enables  everyone  who  desires  a  tract  of  farm  land 
to  purchase  it  for  a  home. 

In  the  long  run  the  Government  will  not  be  out  anything.  The  bonds  issued 
by  the  Government  will  be  repaid  out  of  the  collections,  principal  and  interest, 


754  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

of  the  second  mortgages,  and,  as  additional  security  for  these  second  loans, 
the  insurance  which  the  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  have  taken  out  from  the 
Government  is  assigned.  Certainly  the  Government's  own  insurance  is  good 
security.  This  insurance  must  lie  kept  alive  and  in  full  force  and  effect,  and 
this  of  itself  will  be  helpful  in  inducing  them  to  keep  the  insurance  in  force. 
In  the  event  of  a  man's  death  his  wife  or  other  dependents  can  pay  off  the 
loan  upon  the  farm  with  the  insurance  and  have  a  home. 

In  addition  to  the  general  legislation  enacted  for  the  benefit  of  men  in  the 
service  during  this  war,  we  have  given  them  a  small  additional  sum  to  tide 
them  over  their  period  of  unemployment.  This  bill  will  prove  of  substantial 
and  lasting  benefit  to  them.  It  affords  the  man  opportunity  to  get  cheap 
money,  is  an  inducement  to  purchase  homes,  gives  them  employment,  encour- 
ages thrift  and  economy,  and  will  prove  of  permanent  benefit  to  them.  It  will 
aid  in  the  development  of  our  country  and  show  that  this  Republic  is  not  un- 
grateful to  the  men  who  were  willing  to  sacrifice  all  in  order  that  liberty  might 
live. 

I  voted  for  the  declaration  of  war  against  Germany.  There  was  no  other 
course  to  pursue.  I  voted  for  all  the  legislation  recommended  as  necessary 
and  the  appropriations  asked  in  order  that  we  might  triumph  over  German 
military  force.  From  the  date  of  the  passage  of  the  resolution,  in  April,  1917, 
until  tlie  armistice  was  sigited  and  proclaimed  on  November  11,  1918,  I  felt 
keenly  the  responsibility  laid  upon  the  Representatives  of  the  people  of  this 
country.  I  now  feel  as  keenly  the  necessity  for  proper  and  just  recognition  of 
the  services  of  the  men  who  were  ready  and  willing  to  carry  the  Stars  and 
Stripes  to  victory.  Their  services  were  invaluable. 

The  bill  is  as  follows: 

lie  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled.  That  any  honorably  discharged  sol- 
flier,  sailor,  or  marine  who  served  in  the  war  with  Germany,  on  and  after  the 
p-issago  of  this  act,  shall  be  entitled  to  enter  a  tract  of  public  land,  under  the 
provisions  of  the  public-land  laws  applicable  to  the  land  entered,  and  shall 
further  be  entitled  to  make  said  entry  without  payment  of  fees  and  commission 
as  now  provided  by  law. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Interior  is  hereby  authorized  to  reserve  the  entry  for 
a  period  of  two  years  from  the  passage  of  this  act  any  part  or  portion  of  the 
public  domain,  during  which  time  the  said  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  herein 
mentioned  shall  have  a  preference  right  to  enter  upon  said  land  :  I'rorirtctl,  That 
the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  under  rules  and  regulations  to  be  prescribed  by 
him,  is  authorized  to  waive  the  time  limit  of  residence  on  said  homesteads,  as 
required  of  other  settlers. 

SKC.  2.  That  the  fifth  paragraph  of  section  12  of  the  net  entitled  "An  act  to 
provide  capital  for  agricultural  development,  to  create  standard  forms  of 
investment  based  upon  farm  mortgage,  to  equalize  rates  of  interest  upon  farm 
loans,  to  furnish  a  market  for  United  States  bonds,  to  create  Government 
depositaries  and  financial  agents  for  the  United  States,  :-nd  for  other  purposes," 
approved  July  17,  1916,  shall  be  amended  so  as  to  read  as  follows : 

"Fifth.  No  such  loan  shall  exceed  50  per  centum  of  the  value  of  the  land 
mortgaged  and  20  per  centum  of  the  value  of  the  permanent,  insured  improve- 
ments thereon,  said  value  to  be  ascertained  by  appraisal,  as  provided  in  sec- 
tion 10  of  this  act:  Provided,  That  loans  may  be  made,  as  hereinafter  provided, 
to  honorably  discharged  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  who  served  in  the  war 
with  Germany,  to  an  amount  equaling  1.00  per  centum  of  the  value  of  the  land 
and  permanent,  insured  improvements  thereon:  J'roriilci]  further.  That  the 
loans  shall  be  divided  so  that  a  first  mortgage  shall  be  taken  upon  the  land 
:>nd  the  improvements  in  each  case  to  secure  the  note  for  a  first  loan  in  an 
amount  not  to  exceed  50  per  centum  of  the  value  of  the  land  mortgaged  and 
20  per  centum  of  the  value  of  the  permanent,  insured  improvements  thereon, 
which  notes  for  said  amounts  may  be  used  by  the  farm-loan  banks  as  security 
•for  the  farm-loan  bonds,  the  same  as  notes  made  by  other  borrowers,  and  a 
second  mortgage  shall  he  taken  upon  the  land  and  the  permanent,  insure  1  im- 
provements theivon.  to  secure  a  second  loan  evidenced  by  a  note  for  the  re- 
mainder of  the  loan  in  each  case,  in  an  amount  in  the  aggregate1  not  to  exceed 
100  per  centum  of  the  value  of  the  laud  and  the  permanent,  insured  improve- 
ments thereon,  which  said  second  mortgages  shall  be  held  by  the  farm-land  bank 
of  the  district  in  which  the  land  and  Improvements  so  mortgaged  are  located, 
and  collections  shall  be  made  on  them,  both  as  to  principal  and  interest.  Hie 
same  as  notes  secured  by  first  mortgages,  and  the  United  States  shall  issue 


HOMES    FOR  SOLDIERS.  755 

its  bonds,  which  shall  be  denominated  '  soldiers'  bond,'  to  such  an  amount  as 
may  bo  necessary  to  make  the  proceeds  equal  the  amount  of  the  second  mort- 
gages, which  said  bonds  shall  be  nontaxable  and  bear  interest  at  a  rate  not 
to  exceed  4£  per  centum  and  be  sold  for  not  less  than  par  value,  and  the  money 
shall  be  loaned  to  said  honorably  discharged  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  at 
the  same  rate  as  paid  upon  the  notes  secured  by  the  first  mortgages,  and  the 
proceeds  derived  from  the  payment  of  the  notes  secured  by  the  second  mort- 
gages shall,  when  collected,  be  used  for  the  payment  and  -retirement  of  the 
(jovornmeut  bonds  herein  authorized  to  be  issued :  Provided,  however,  That 
said  second  loan  shall  be  made  only  to  those  honorably  discharged  soldiers, 
sailors,  and  marines  who  carry  life  insurance  under  the  war-risk  insurance 
act  approved  October  6,  1917,  and  acts  amendatory  thereof,  in  full  force 
and  effect,  which  shall  be  assigned  and  held  as  additional  security  for  said 
second  loan. 

"  In  making  said  appraisal  the  value  of  the  land  for  agricultural  purposes 
shall  be  the  basis  of  appraisal  and  the  earning  power  of  said  land  shall  be  a 
principal  factor. 

"A  reappraisal  may  be  permitted  at  any  time  in  the  discretion  of  the  Fed- 
eral land  bank,  and  such  additional  loan  may  be  granted  as  such  appraisal 
will  warrant  under  the  provisions  of  this  paragraph.  Whenever  the  amount 
of  the  loan  applied  for  exceeds  the  amount  that  may  be  loaned  under  the 
appraisal  as  herein  limited,  such  loan  may  be  granted  to  the  amount  permitted 
under  the  terms  of  this  paragraph  without  requiring  a  new  application  or 
appraisal." 

SEC.  3.  That  section  15  of  said  act  shall  be  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  of 
said  section  the  following  paragraph : 

"  Each  farm-land  bank  in  its  respective  district  is  authorized  to  make  loans 
to  honorably  discharged  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  or  farm  lands  through 
agents  appointed  by  it  and  approved  by  the  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board,  which 
agents  may  be  other  than  duly  incorporated  banks,  trust  companies,  mortgage 
companies,  or  savings  institutions  chartered  by  the  State  in  which  they  have 
their  principal  office." 

SEC.  4.  That  the  short  title  of  this  act  shall  be  the  "  soldiers'  home  act." 
Sincerely,  yours, 

W.  W.  HASTINGS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  also  received  this  morning  a  letter  from  Secre- 
tary Wilson,  which  gives  his  views  about  this  land  legislation.  The 
Secretary  writes  me  that  owing  to  the  pressure  of  departmental  work 
he  has  been  unable  to  appear  before  the  committee,  and  he  asks  me  to 
do  him  the  favor  of  accepting  in  lieu  of  an  oral  statement  the  in- 
closed excerpts  from  his  annual  reports,  and  without  objection  this 
will  go  in  at  this  point. 

(The  matter  referred  to  follows:) 

DEPARTMENT  OF  LABOR, 

Washington,  June  26,  1919. 
Hon.  N.  J.  SINNOTT, 

Cliainitan  Committee  on  Public  Lands, 

House  of  Representatives. 

MY  DEAR  CONGRESSMAN  :  I  beg  that  you  and  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands, 
of  which  jou  arc  chairman,  will  pardon  the  delay  in  acknowledging  your  letter 
of  Juno  10. 

Owing  to  pressure  of  departmental  work  I  have  been  unable  to  suggest  a  date 
on  which  I  might  avail  myself  of  your  courteous  invitation  to  make  a  state- 
ment before  your  committee  regarding  the  soldiers'  land  settlement  legislation; 
and  I  lind  now  that  I  can  not.  name  a  dato  without  risk  of  embarrassing  conflict 
of  duties. 

Will  you  not  therefore  do  me  the  favor  of  accepting,  in  lieu  of  an  oral  state- 
ment, the  inclosed  excerpts  from1  my  annual  reports?  They  express  my  views 
on  the  subject  as  fully  as  I  could  state  them  in  person. 

The  inciosnres  are  taken  from  the  Third  Animal  Report  of  the  Secretary  of 
Laber,  fiscal  year  ended  June  30,  1915,  at  pages  41  to  4."> ;  and  from  the  Sixth 
Annual  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  Labor  for  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30,  1918, 
at  pages  143  to  14G  and  219  to  222. 


756  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Trusting  that  this  suggestion  may  meet  with  your  approval  and  thanking  you 
in  anticipation,  I  am 

Very  respectfully,  yours,  W.  B.  WILSON, 

Secretary  of  Labor. 


[Inclosure  A.] 

DEPARTMENTAL  RECOMMENDATIONS. 
EMPLOYMENT  FOR  HETUKNING  SOLDIERS. 

The  department  looks  forward  to  the  day  when  our  victorious  soldiers  will  re- 
turn to  their  peaceful  and  customary  pursuits  and  join,  once  more  in  the  up- 
building through  industry  of  the  Nation  which  they  have  defended  by  force  of 
{inns.  Nor  is  the  department  unmindful  of  the  fact  that  the  overwhelming  mass 
of  our  armies  is  drawn  from  the  ranks  of  wage  earners,  and  that  when  their 
military  task  is  done  these  men  will  return  to  the  ranks  of  wage  earners.  It 
would  be  an  ungrateful  Nation,  indeed,  which  did  not  deem  it  its  first  duty  to 
assure  to  its  returned  soldiers  honorable  and  profitable  employment.  It  has  been 
the  unfortunate  experience  of  the  armies  of  other  nations  that  gratitude  has 
been  too  frequently  confined  to  words,  and  men  who  have  risked  their  lives 
have  too  often  been  released  from  military  life  to  find  an  industrial  condition 
where  there  were  more  men  than  opportunities  for  work.  In  consequence,  such 
in-an  have  frequently  submitted  to  the  humiliation  of  accepting  alms. 

The  department  therefore  believes  that  the  problem  of  providing  profitable 
employment  for  our  returned  soldiers  is  its  first  duty.  To  believe  otherwise 
would  be  to  violate  the  spirit  of  the  organic  act  of  the  department.  "  The  pur- 
pose of  the  Department  of  Labor,"  says  this  act,  "  shall  be  to  foster,  promote, 
and  develop  the  welfare  of  the  wage  earners  of  the  United  States,  to  improve 
their  working  conditions,  and  to  advance  their  opportunities  for  profitable 
employment." 

It  is  in  furtherance  of  this  injunction  that  the  department  has  created  and 
extended  the  United  States  Employment  Service.  The  duties  of  this  service,  in 
brief,  are  to  bring  togther  the  ruanless  job  and  the  jobless  man.  It  is  therefore 
contemplated  to  use  its  full  resources  in  minimizing  such  unemployment  as  shall 
occur.  And,  indeed,  if  there  were  an  equality  between  the  numbers  of  men  wish- 
ing employment  and  the  opportunities  for  employment,  this  liaison  would  be 
sufficient.  Even  in  the  most  prosperous  periods,  however,  there  is  a  disparity 
between  the  actual  number  of  wage  earners  and  the  number  that  our  industries 
can  absorb.  Under  the  most  favorable  circumstances  tins  unemployed  surplus 
is  such  as  to  give  rise  to  grave  social  and  industrial  problems.  So  long  as  this 
basic  condition  persists,  it  is  apparent  that  the  mere  bringing  together  of  men 
:'iid  jobs  is  not  sufficient.  In  order  to  provide  for  this  surplus,  wo  must  do 
more  than  seek  for  employment  among  opportunities  already  existing.  We 
must  correct  the  disparity  itself.  Consequently,  the  department  faces  the  fur- 
ther duty  of  creating  new  opportunities  for  employment.  In  accordance  witt 
this  view,  the  department  has  been  for  more  than  three  years  engaged  upon  a 
comprehensive  study  of  the  problem  of  discovering  new  and  profitable  oppor- 
tunities for  employment.  In  the  course  of  its  investigations  it  has  availed  itself 
of  the  export  assistance  and  advice  of  many  persons  in  other  departments. 

Although  the  war  has  intensified  the  basic  problem  and  introduced  cert;! in  new- 
factors,  it  has  in  no  essential  respect  altered  any  of  the  chief  elements.  Conse- 
quently, I  believe  that  the  plans  already  formulated  will  require  extension 
rather  than  alteration. 

Although  novel  expedients  have  been  suggested,  it  has  seemed  best  to  proceed 
in  accordance  with  historical  precedents  and  to  pursue  a  course  that  is  justified 
by  our  own  experience  and  by  that  of  other  nations. 

Such  experience,  as  well  as  the  undoubted  necessity  for  a  continuous  augmen- 
tation of  the  world's  food  supply  for  many  years  to  come,  indicates  that  a  more 
extensive  as  well  as  a  more  intensive  use  of  our  natural  resources  must  be 
made.  The  soil  is  and  must  remain  the  chief  working  opportunity  for  large 
numbers  of  the  Nation's  wage  earners.  It  is  therefore  desirable  and  Imperative 
that  a  comprehensive  policy  with  regard  to  the  public  domain  be  established. 

The  same  problem  was  before  us  more  than  a  half  century  ago.  Access  to 
the  public  domain  was  provided  by  the  homestead  law  of  1S<VJ  and  further 
privileges  extended  specifically  to  soldiers  in  1872.  The  results  of  this  policy 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  757 

were  beneficial  in  that  they  provided  work  for  unemployed  persons,  but  such 
benefit s  were  also  accompanied  by  grave  evils.  Too  frequently  the  efforts  of 
the  settler,  who  was  not  inured  to  the  hardships  of  the  frontier  or  familiar  with 
agriculture,  resulted  in  failure.  Isolated  from  his  fellows  and  remote  from  the 
advantages  of  the  city,  the  pioneer  achieved  only  after  a  long  struggle  such  form 
of  organization  as  rural  life  now  possesses.  Other  nations  have  profited  by  our 
hitler  experience  in  this  respect  and  have,  in  consequence,  abandoned  home- 
steading  or  the  method  in  which  the  settler  is  merely  provided  with  a  land  title 
and  left  like  Robinson  Crusoe  to  work  out  his  own  salvation.  For  the  uncer- 
tainties of  homesteading  there  should  be  substituted  an  orderly,  properly 
planned  scheme  of  colonization,  in  which  the  Federal  Government  shall  estab- 
lish and  equip  not  only  individual  farms,  but  also  link  them  together  into 
organized  communities.  Rural  planning  should  be  brought  into  play  in  order  to 
make  life  in  the  rural  districts  attractive  and  in  order  to  stem  the  movement 
from  the  farms  to  the  cities. 

Settlers  should  likewise  be  protected  from  the  evils  of  land  speculation.  The 
liberal  grants  of  former  years  to  soldiers  were  of  almost  no  value  to  the  sup- 
posed beneficiaries,  because  of  the  speedy  transfer  to  persons  who  were  pri- 
marily interested  in  the  resale  of  such  lands  at  higher  prices.  Speculation  and 
inflation  are  evils  which  it  has  been  found  possible  to  correct  in  the  experience 
of  our  associated  belligerents.  I  therefore  favor  the  adoption  of  some  form 
of  tenure  which  will  lay  less  stress  upon  titles  and  more  upon  actual  use  by 
occupants.  The  absolute  tenure  does  not  seem  to  be  well  adapted  to  public 
colonization,  since  it  is  useless  to  the  working  settler  and  attractive  to  the  specu- 
lator. There  are  several  other  forms  of  tenure  including  the  perpetual  lease- 
hold, better  adapted  for  our  purposes. 

I  therefore  recommend  the  early  enactment  of  such  legislation  as  may  be  nec- 
essary to  permit  the  preparation  of  the  public  domain  for  this  purpose.  Such 
legislation  should  provide  for  the  purchase  of  such  privately  owned  areas  at  it 
may  be  found  desirable  to  add  to  the  public  areas. 

Xor  should  our  effoi'ts  be  considered  as  limited  to  agriculture.  Great  areas 
are,  by  reason  of  natural  adaptation,  necessarily  destined  for  forest  uses.  The 
wasteful  methods  in  vogue  in  the  past  in  the  lumber  industry  have  resulted  in 
the  practical  destruction  of  our  finest  forest  areas.  The  policy  has  been  to 
treat  trees  as  deposits  of  wood  above  the  surface  and  of  the  same  nature  as 
mines,  which  are  deposits  of  mineral  below  the  surface.  These  deposits  have 
been  destroyed  one  ofter  the  other  without  regard  for  the  needs  of  the  future. 
At  the  same  time  the  industry  has  been  a  movable  one,  operated  in  the  main 
by  men  the  nature  of  whose  work  denies  them  homes  or  marriage  or  even 
votes.  No  one  who  has  the  interest  of  America  at  heart  can  look  forward 
with  tolerance  to  the  growth  or  continuance  of  a  body  of  migratory  workers 
who  in  the  nature  of  the  case  must  have  lower  social  and  moral  standards 
than  their  fellows  and  a  hatred  for  the  law  which  they  have  never  known 
e.vcpt  in  its  repressive  aspect.  Happily,  the  possession  of  the  national  for- 
ests gives  us  an  opportunity  to  apply  the  principles  of  colonization  to  timber- 
lands  also.  The  substitution  of  scientific  silviculture  for  timber  mining  will 
give  us  an  opportunity  to  establish  permanent  forest  communities  where  local 
self-government,  marriage,  and  education  are  possible. 

In  presenting  these  recommendations  at  this  time,  I  regard  it  unnecessary 
to  point  out  further  possibilities,  of  which  the  foregoing  will  serve  as  an  ex- 
ample. In  setting  forth  the  necessity  for  land  settlement  I  am  not  unmindful 
of  the  vast  numbers  who  must  again  find  places  in  our  complex  industrial 
organization.  It  is  too  early  at  present  to  forecast  accurately  the  industrial 
organization  or  needs  of  our  Nation  after  the  war.  All  the  properly  adapted 
facilities  of  the  Department  of  Labor  are  at  present  engaged  in  the  study  of 
those  problems  of  reconstruction  peculiar  to  manufacturing  and  secondary 
industry  ;  and  from  time  to  time  I  shall  have  recommendations  and  conclusions 
to  present  based  upon  such  studies.  No  such  doubt,  however,  exists  with 
regard  to  primary  industry,  and  I  urge  early  legislation  in  accordance  with 
the  principles  laid  down  in  the  foregoing  paragraphs. 

Legislation  upon  this  important  subject  should  include  three  minimum 
provisions:  (1)  Possibilities  of  commercialized  speculation  in  titles  must  be 
guarded  against.  (2)  Colonists  must  be  given  access  not  only  to  land  but  to 
farms,  not  the  bare  soil  but  fully  equipped  agricultural  plants  ready  to 
operate.  (3)  The  farms  themselves  must  be  welded  together  into  genuine 
communities  by  provision  for  roads,  schools,  and  markets,  under  the  general 
supervision  of  the  Federal  Government. 


758  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

The  primary  principle  involved  is  not  the  use  of  men  for  development 
of  land  but  the  development  of  land  for  the  use  of  men.  With  regard  to 
machinery  for  putting  these  provisions  into  effect,  I  recommend  the  organiza- 
tion of  a  board  consisting  of  the  Secretaries  of  the  Departments  of  Agricul- 
ture, Interior,  and  Labor  for  the  further  organization  and  supervision  of  the 
general  plan.  Regardless  of  the  machinery  by  which  it  is  put  into  operation, 
whatever  legislation  is  granted  should  recognize  the  cardinal  principle  that 
the  natural  resources  of  the  Nation  are  for  the  common  good  of  all  and  should 
be  accessible  on  such  terms  as  to  discourage  speculation  and  exploitation  and 
to  reward  diligence  and  thrift. 


[Inclosure  B.] 
MAKING  NEW   OPPORTUNITIES   FOE   EMPLOYMENT. 

In  previous  reports  I  have  referred  to  the  necessity  of  extending  the  labor 
distribution  work  of  this  department  further  than  the  bringing  together  of  the 
"  manless  job"  and  the  "jobless  man."  It  has  been  pointed  out  that  this 
work  should  cover  also  the  possibilities  of  creating  new  opportunities  for 
employment  through  a  suitable  development  of  the  country's  natural  resources. 
The  special  need  of  such  a  policy  in  connection  with  our  returning  soldiers 
was  emphasized  in  my  report  of  last  year. 

As  a  beginning  in  the  work  referred  to,  and  in  anticipation  of  the  present 
emergency,  an  investigation  has  been  made  under  the  direction  of  the  Assistant 
Secretary  and  in  cooperation  with  experts  in  other  departments  as  to  the  possi- 
bilities in  the  United  States  for  utilizing  land  and  natural  resources  for  the 
profitable  employment  of  returned  soldiers  and  other  workers.  A  report  has 
been  made  on  this  investigation  and  a  preliminary  statement  thereon  was  pub- 
lished last  January  in  the  Monthly  Review  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics. 

The  main  conclusions  of  this  study,  as  they  bear  on  the  demobilization  which 
now  confronts  us,  are  here  set  forth  in  brief.  They  relate  to  the  agricultural, 
forest,  and  mineral  resources  of  the  country. 

Agricultural  land. — Agricultural  land  which  is  potentially  arable  but  not  yet 
improved  is  estimated  to  cover  about  one-fourth  the  area  of  continental  United 
States,  or  475,000,000  acres.  The  development  of  this  huge  area  will  lake  many 
years,  so  there  is  ample  land  for  any  returning  soldiers  or  war  workers  who 
may  desire  employment.  But  the  distribution  of  this  land  presents  some  serious 
problems.  The  idle  areas  are  proportionally  smaller  in  the  more  populous  east- 
ern States  than  in  the  less  populous  western  States.  Four-fifths  of  the 
475,000,000  acres  consist  of  fractional  portions  of  farms  already  established,  the 
remaining  fifth  consisting  almost  wholly  of  desert,  swamp,  and  cut-over  timber- 
lands  capable  of  reclamation.  Almost  all  of  this  agricultural  land  is  at  present 
in  private  hands,  though  some  15,000,000  acres  of  irrigable  desert  are  still  in- 
cluded in  the  public  domain  and  a  few  bodies  of  swamp  land  remain  in  State 
ownership. 

Judging  from  the  experience  of  the  Australian  and  other  countries  a  vast 
amount  of  false  motion  can  be  saved  by  the  preparation  of  ready-made  farms 
and  through  the  development  of  areas  by  means  of  the  community  unit  rather 
than  the  isolated  farm  unit.  Demonstration  farms,  run  by  the  Stare  and 
located  at  the  center  of  the  colonies,  form  an  important  feature  of  the  Aus- 
tralian system.  On  these  farms  pure-bred  cattle  and  other  live  stock  may  be 
raised  and  sold  at  cost  to  settlers.  These  farms  are  used,  too.  for  training 
now  settlers  under  the  direction  of  an  agricultural  adviser.  This  community  or 
colony  type  of  land  settlement  is  being  adopted  in  the  reconstruction  plans  of 
the  British  Empire. 

Community  settlement  is  well  adapted  to  conditions  in  the  United  States :  it 
is  being  very  generally  advocated  in  all  sections  of  the  country,  and  one  colony 
based  upon  the  Australian  system  has  been  established  on  a  tract  of  ("5.000  acres 
of  irrigable  land  in  California.  This  tract  was  purchased  by  the  State  under 
authority  of  a  law  passed  in  1917.  For  the  purpose  of  community  settlement  it 
is  necessary  that  the  Government,  or  the  States,  should  reserve  or  purchase  land 
in  fairly  large  contiguous  tracts  and  under  conditions  which  allow  the  applica- 
tion of  a  consistent  anil  systematic  set  I  lenient  policy. 

II  seems  to  be  common  opinion  tlial  community  life  should  be  required  lor  the 
returned  soldier.  He  can  riot  be  expected  to  settle  down  in  a  needless  rural 
isolation.  The  soldier  settler  must  be  provided  with  modern  facilities  for  co- 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  759 

operative  effort.  These  apply  to  marketing,  purchasing,  and  his  other  needs. 
He  must  be  provided  also  with  security  in  his  home  and  farm.  For  this  rea- 
son speculation  in  land  must  be  eliminated  and  hence  all  titles  must  be  de- 
pendent upon  use.  With  the  land  thus  made  secure  for  its  actual  occupant  and 
user,  State  loans  on  easy  terms  made  to  the  settler  will  prove  a  real  benefit  in 
obtaining  initial  farm  equipment.  Such  loans  should  be  provided  for  in  the 
case  of  each  colony. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  no  colony  should  be  established  on  land  which 
can  not  be  profitably  farmed.  The  specific  test  for  such  land  is  the  estimated 
yearly  compensation  to  be  obtained  by  the  settler  for  his  own  use  as  a  result 
of  his  labor.  The  compensation  amounts  to  the  difference  between  the  gross 
money  return  and  all  fixed  expenses.  The  latter  include  interest  and  amortiza- 
tion charges  for  reclamation  and  improvements,  payment  of  taxes  and  the 
use  of  land,  and  general  running  costs.  If  the  compensation  over  and  above 
these  expenses  amounts  at  least  to  a  fair  wage,  then  the  labor  of  farming  the 
land  amounts  to  profitable  employment.  Otherwise  it  does  not. 

Concrete  examples  illustrating  how  the  Australian  methods  of  community 
settlement  might  be  applied  in  this  country  on  some  of  our  undeveloped  lands 
have  been  worked  out  in  the  department's  investigation  for  actual  areas  in 
nrnhern  Minnesota  and  Wisconsin. 

Forest  land. — Forest  land  presents  another  fundamental  opportunity  for 
profitable  employment.  Permanent  forest  areas,  outside  of  farm  limits,  'cover 
one-fifth  of  the  TJnited  States,  including  the  estimated  area  for  farm  wood 
lots,  they  will  cover  nearly  one-fourth  of  the  country.  These  lands  form  the 
basis  not  only  of  logging  and  sawmilliug,  but  of  the  manifold  woodworking 
industries1  as  well.  But  the  forest  industry,  in  order  to  realize  its  full  value 
as  an  opportunity  for  American  workers — whether  returned  soldiers  or  other- 
wise— must  be  handled  in  accodance  with  the  principles  of  forestry  as  against 
those  of  old-time  lumbering;  it  must  be  placed  upon  a  cultural  instead  of  an 
exploitation  basis ;  timber  culture  must  replace  "  timber  mining." 

Lumbering  as  now  generally  practiced  is  a  migratory  industry ;  it  is  there- 
fore a  breeder  of  migratory  labor  and  hoboism.  By  placing  each  logging  unit 
under  forestry  so  as  to  obtain  therefrom  a  continuous  timber  yield,  the  lumber 
camp  and  the  "  bunk  house  "  can  be  converted  into  a  forest  community.  The 
woods  worker  could  then  have  a  home  as  permanent  at  least  as  that  of  his 
fellow  workers  in  other  industries,  and  the  so-called  '  wobbly  "  would  be  in 
process  of  extinction. 

This  change  can  not,  of  course,  be  accomplished  all  at  once.  But  a  beginning 
can  be  made  in  time  to  benefit  soldiers  now  returning  from  the  war.  The 
opportunity  for  this  beginning  is  offered  in  the  150,000,00')  acres  or  more  of 
our  national  forests.  Forest  management  of  the  kind  required  could  be  car- 
ried on  in  some  cases  through  the  present  system  of  "  timber  sales  " ;  in  •  ther 
cases  it  has  been  suggested  that  the  Government  conduct  its  own  logging 
operations.  This  policy  lias  already  been  initiated  by  the  United  States  forest 
regiments,  not  only  in  France  but  on  our  own  Pacific  coast  where  spruce  has 
been  cut  for  airplane  stock.  The  problems  of  marketing  thus  arising  would 
have  to  be  taken  up  in  each  case.  One  important  market  will  consist  of  the 
coining  needs  of  the  Government  itself  for  vast  quantities  of  timber. 

On  many  of  the  cut-over  bottom  lands  within  the  national  forests  there  are 
opportunities  for  establishing  agricultural  community  settlements  like  those 
which  have  been  described.  A  concrete  illustration  of  combined  farm  and 
forest  settlement  has  been  worked  out  for  actual  areas  in  the  national  joivsts 
of  western  Washington. 

Mineral  land. — Mineral  land  which  may  be  utilized  as  an  opportunity  for  the 
employment  of  American  soldiers  now  returning  consists  for  the  most  part  of 
the  coal  fiends  which  still  remain  in  the  public  domaifi.  Some  of  these  are 
located  in  the  Western  States.  The  most  important,  however,  lie  in  the  Terri- 
tory of  Alaska.  These  Alaskan  fields  have  been  permanently  reserved,  part 
of  the  coal  to  be  mined  under  a  leasing  system  and  p.-ut  to  be  retained  for 
Government  use.  A  Government  railroad  has  beeu  built  into  the  Malaiuiska 
coal  fields,  and  these  under  present  law  can  be  further  developed  in  a  way  to 
set  friir  labor  standards  iu  the  mining  industry  and  for  those  seekkig  employ- 
ment in  this  northern  land. 

Alaska  oilers,  in  addition  to  her  coal  resources,  what  may  prove  to  be  one 
of  the  best  fields  of  opportunity  for  Americans  of  a  pioneering  spirit.  And 
this  spirit  will  not  be  absent  among  the  nu-n  returning  from  the  front.  Some 
65,000,000  acres  of  potential  agricultural  and  grazing  land  await  development 


760  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

in  the  several  main  valleys  of  the  Territory.  The  Susitna  Valley  will  be  opened, 
probably  next  year,  with  the  completion  of  the  Government  line  of  railroad 
from  Reward  into  the  interior.  In  area,  latitude,  and  climate  Alaska  is  com- 
parable with  Scandinavia,  and  almost  all  of  the  land  to  be  settled  is  still  in  the 
public  domain.  An  opportunity  might  therefore  be  offered  our  Government  in 
this  Territory  to  establish  a  modern  colonization  policy. 

The  utilization  of  land  herein  reviewed  involves  of  course  a  large  amount 
of  work  other  than  that  required  on  the  individual  farms  when  once  estab- 
lished. These  farms  would  be  ready  made,  but  some  of  the  land  would  require 
irrigation,  drainage,  or  stump  clearing.  This  sort  of  work  can  best  be  carried 
on  by  organized  crews.  The  same  holds  true  for  the  various  kinds  of  work 
required  in  forestry  and  coal  mining.  A  great  deal  of  preliminary  work  must 
be  done  in  all  of  these  industries.  But  this  preliminary  work,  if  properly  con- 
ducted, can  in  itself  be  made  to  serve  as  a  source  of  desirable  employment 
for  returning  soldiers.  From  this  they  can  be  graduated  into  carefully-selected 
opportunities  upon  the  very  land  which  they  prepare. 


[Inclosure  C.] 
MAKING  NEW  OPPORTUNITIES  FOR  EMPLOYMENT. 

It  will  not  be  enough  to  hunt  "  manless  jobs  "  for  "  jobless  men."  Any  ef- 
ficient public  employment  service  of  a  national  character  must  go  beyond  that. 
Unless  it  does,  "manless  jobs"  giving  out  while  "jobless  men"  remain,  the 
causes  of  involuntary  unemployment  will  continue  to  express  themselves  to 
the  great  prejudice  of  the  wageworkers  of  the  United  States  and  consequently 
to  the  harm  of  all  industrial  interests.  In  my  opinion,  therefore,  the  labor- 
distribution  work  of  this  department  should  extend  to  some  such  development 
of  the  natural  resources  of  this  country  as  will  tend  to  make  opportunities  for 
workers  greater  than  demands  for  work  and  to  keep  them  so. 

For  this  purpose  further  legislation  will  be  necessary.  But  it  need  not  be 
either  voluminoxis  or  revolutionary.  Nothing  more  is  required  than  a  judicious 
utilization  of  Government  lands. 

Title  to  some  of  the  old  public  domain  still  remains  in  the  Government.  By 
a  recent  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  Congress  is  soon  to  have  the  power, 
and  to  be  under  an  obligation,  to  treat  with  landgrant  railroads  regarding  the 
terms  on  which  large  areas  of  that  domain  heretofore  granted  away  may  be 
restored.  There  are  extensive  areas  of  privately-owned,  but  unused  farming 
land,  in  most  or  all  of  the  States,  which  might  be  acquired  by  the  General 
Government  for  promoting  labor  opportunities  as  advantageously  as  other 
areas  have  been  acquired  or  retained  by  it  for  the  creation  of  public  parks. 
II  Congress  were  to  adopt,  with  reference  to  those  lands,  a  policy  of  utilizing 
them  for  promoting  opportunities  for  employment,  the  benefits  of  the  labor-dis- 
tribution work  of  this  department,  and  of  State  and  municipal  public  employ- 
ment offices  throughout  the  United  States,  would  be  vastly  augmented. 

For  such  a  policy  the  homestead  laws  seem  to  afford  a  legislative  basis  and 
their  history  to  furnish  valuable  suggestions  Those  laws  nlieved  (lie  industrial 
congestions  of  their  day  by  opening  the  West  to  workers  of  pioneering  spirit 
who  set  up  individual  homes  and  created  independent  farms  in  waste  places. 
But  the  day  of  the  individual  pioneer  is  over.  From  the  Atlantic  he  has  moved 
westward  until  the  Pacific  throws  him  back  again  into  crowded  spaces,  and 
new  forms  of  industrial  congestion  have  consequently  developed.  To  the  relief 
of  these,  the  old  form  of  homesteading  is  not  adapted  ;  hut  tlv  homesteading 
principle  persists.  The  problem  is  how  to  adapt  that  principle  to  changed 
circumstances.  » 

One  necessary  condition  is  that  the  General  Government  shall  retain  title 
to  the  public  lands  it  already  holds.  Another  condition  is  that  from  time  to 
time  it  shall  reacquire  title  to  such  lands  formerly  owned  by  it  but  now  pri- 
vately owned,  as  are  held  out  of  use  and  may  be  reacquired  upon  reasonable 
terms.  Still  another  condition  is  that  the  Government  from  time  to  time  shall 
acquire  title  to  such  privately  owned  lands  in  different  States  as  may  be  usefully 
devoted  to  the  purpose  of  opening  opportunities  for  employment.  All  this  need 
not  be  done  at  once.  A  satisfactory  beginning  may  be  made  with  public  lands 
already  available  for  the  purpose  in  question.  But  it  is  necessary  that  the  Gov- 
ernment shall  not  lightly  divest  itself  of  title  to  any  lands  it  may  set  aside  for 
labor  opportunities.  Regulation  of  private  tenures  created  pursuant  to  this  pur- 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  761 

pose  should  lit  the  circu instances  of  particular  cases.  It  is  therefore  suggested 
th;ii  private  titles  to  lauds  set  aside  for  the  indicated  purpose  be  so  adjusted 
by  the  1  h  ••parlmcnt  of  Labor  to  its  work  of  labor  distribution  as  to  prevent 
inflation  of  land  values.  This  precaution  is  of  extreme  importance.  Wherever 
inflation  of  land  values  might  enter  in,  the  proposed  method  of  promoting  labor 
•distribution  would  be  obstructed. 

There  is  still  another  essential  condition.  Equipment  for  farming  and  edu- 
cation in  farming,  as  well  as  a  place  for  farming,  are  needed.  All  three,  how- 
ever, could  he  met  by  an  appropriate  unification  of  some  of  the  activities  of  the 
Departments  of  the  Interior,  of  Agriculture,  and  of  Labor.  Pursuant  to  such 
indication.  Congress  might  provide  a  "  rotary  fund  "  for  lending  purposes;  that 
is,  a  fund  to  be  used  over  and  over  again  for  those  purposes,  and  to  be  main- 
tained by  repayments  of  loans.  Out  of  this  fund  Congress  could  authorize  the 
departments  named  above  to  make  loans,  through  the  Department  of  Labor,  to 
seniors  placed  by  this  department  upon  lands  set  aside  for  that  purpose  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  authorized  plan  for  thus  augmenting  labor  opportunities. 
Those  loans  could  be  safeguarded,  without  commercial  collateral,  by  resting 
them  upon  the  l>est  possible  basis  of  industrial  credit — ability,  opportunity,  and 
character — and  by  establishing  in  connection  with  tliem  a  system  of  community 
credits  adapted  to  the  circumstances. 

I?y  their  educational  processes  the  Departments  of  the  Interior  and  of  Agri- 
culture could  make  efficient  farmers  of  inexperienced  but  otherwise  competent 
workers  seeking  that  vocation.  By  its  marketing  plans  the  Department  of  Agri- 
culture could  guard  borrowers  from  the  "  rotary  fund "  against  commercial 
misfortune  in  disposing  of  their  crops.  By  its  labor-distribution  functions  the 
Department  of  Labor  could  bring  the  right  men  to  the  right  places  on  the  soil 
and  sertle  them  there  under  favorable  circumstances.  And  by  their  several 
appropriate  functions  these  three  departments,  cooperating  under  appropriate 
legislation,  could  multiply  demands  for  labor  in  rural  regions  and  minimize 
labor  congestion  at  industrial  centers. 

It  is  a  reasonable  prediction  that  such  a  policy  would  develop  in  country  and 
city  an  economically  independent  and  socially  progressive  population.  The  re- 
sults would  be  analogous  in  our  time  to  those  of  the  homestead  laws  at  an 
earlier  period. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  W.  R.  GREEN,  OF  BUHL,  IDAHO. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  have  with  us  this  morning  Mr.  Green,  a  son 
of  Congressman  Green,  of  Io\va,  who  will  favor  us  with  a  statement. 
Will  10  minutes  be  sufficient  time  for  you,  Mr.  Green? 

Mr.  GREEX.  I  think  so. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  can  state  who  you  are  and  give  your  views 
upon  the  bill.  Would  you  prefer  not  to  have  questions  asked  until 
you  are  through  with  your  statement? 

Mr.  GREEN.  That  is  a  matter  of  indifference  to  me.  If  it  is  more 
convenient  for  the  members  to  ask  qestions  as  I  go  along  it  will  be 
entirely  satisfactory  to  me. 

My  name  is  W.  R.  Green,  jr.,  and  I  reside  at  Buhl,  Idaho.  I  came 
out  here  as  the  representative  of  the  soldiers  and  citizens  of  the 
county  in  which  I  live,  Twin  Falls  County,  Idaho.  I  put  in  18 
months  in  the  Army,  and  am  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  soldiers. 
I  think  I  know  them  probably  as  well  as  the  average  man  would 
who  had  been  in  for  that  length  of  time,  due  to  the  fact  that  I  came 
in  contact  with  more  men  than  the  average  man  who  is  in  the  Army 
would.  I  want  to  say  to  you,  gentlemen,  that  after  we  all  caught  our 
breath  after  the  start  of  the  war  the  men  were  wondering  what  was 
going  to  happen  to  them  after  they  got  out,  and  whether  Uncle  Sam 
was  going  to  favor  them  in  any  way,  and  continually  I  heard  talk 
and  discussion  of  the  question  of  some  sort  of  farms  for  the  return- 
ing soldiers. 


762  HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS. 

The  western  boys  were  not  satisfied  with  the  prospect  of  home- 
steads, because  they  knew,  as  I  knew,  that  there  was  very  little- 
desirable  homestead  land  left,  and  they  felt  that  there  was  not  any- 
thing left  to  be  had  unless  the  Government  took  some  sort  of  steps 
or  action  to  develop  lands  for  them.  They  felt  that  the  lands  were 
not  available  and  satisfactory  under  the  present  conditions.  I  have 
had  occasion  to  talk  to  a  great  many  soldiers  lately,  not  only  in  my 
own  community  but  on  my  way  down  here  I  met  a  number  of 
them,  and  they  are  all  interested  in  this.  Now,  to  say  that  they 
would  all  want  to  take  farms  would,  of  course,  be  too  strong  a  state- 
ment, but  I  mean  those  who  are  interested  in  it.  Of  course,  a  lot  of 
them  will  say,  "  I  have  a  good  job,  and  I  do  not  care,"  but  a  lot  of 
them  want  a 'good  place  to  take  a  home,  and  they  are  looking  to  Con- 

f:*ess  to  provide  it  for  them.  They  feel  that  they  are  entitled  to  it. 
ow,  you  would  be  surprised  to  find  the  number  of  men  out  of  the 
cities  who  by  reason  of  their  outdoor  life  in  the  Army,  and,  partic- 
ularly by  reason  of  the  fact  that  they  became  familiar  with  the  oper- 
ation of  the  pick  and  shovel,  have  acquired  an  inclination  for  out- 
door life,  and  they  want  it.  They  have  been  taken  away  from  the 
congested  conditions  of  the  cities,  and  they  have  been  living  in  the 
fresh  air,  and  as  they  come  back  they  find  that  the  congested  city 
conditions  pinch  them  in  very  much  the  same  way  that  the  English 
walking  shoe  does  when  they  first  put  it  on.  They  do  not  like  it, 
and  they  soon  begin  to  feel  cramped.  There  is  only  one  way.  and 
that  is  to  provide  farms  for  them.  They  will  not  be  satisfied  with 
a  cash  bonus — or  would  not  after  the  money  has  been  in  their  hands 
for  30  days — and  I  do  not  think  that  anybody  after  careful  consid- 
eration would  ever  favor  such  a  proposition. 

Possibly,  as  the  sergeant  said  here  the  other  day.  the  Government 
may  owe  them  a  little.  I  do  not  know  about  that,  and  I  do  not  care 
to  go  into  that,  but  those  funds  will  be  dissipated  just  as  surely  as  the 
world  stands.  I  have  known  men  to  draw  three  months'  pay  and 
shoot  it  away  in  craps  in  two  hours.  I  know  how  these  men  in  the 
Army  spend  money,  and  they  are  no  better  now  than  they  were  then. 
They  are  just  the  same  as  they  Avere  when  they  went  into  the  Army 
and  have  the  same  ideas  with  regard  to  hanging  on  to  their  money. 
They  spend  it.  Now,  to  my  mind,  the  Government  owes  a  certain 
duty  to  these  men  besides  providing  for  them  cash  compensation. 
These  are  young  men,  most  of  them  ranging  from  21  to  31  years  of 
age.  You  have  got  to  take  care  of  them.  I  am  a  little  over  31  years 
old  myself,  and  I  am  a  lawyer  by  profession,  but  I  have  a  lot  of  the 
kid  in  me  yet,  and  if  somebody  handed  me  a  big  bunch  of  money  I 
might  buy  an  automobile  with  it  and  run  it  in  a  ditch,  and  the  game 
would  be  over  right  there.  It  is  true  that  all  of  these  men,  or  some 
of  them,  have  not  received  the  educational  advantages  that  I  have 
had,  but,  as  I  have  said,  if  a  cash  bonus  is  given  them,  that  money 
will  go.  I  can  not  speak  of  the  possibilities  of  success  in  other  States 
except  my  own.  I  know  about  Idaho  and  her  irrigation  projects,  and 
1  know  of  the  success  that  can  be  attained  there.  I  know  that  from 
personal  observation.  I  have  seen  men  on  tracts  of  land  of  compara- 
tively small  area,  ranging  from  10  to  30  acres,  take  from  four' to  five 
hundred  dollars'  worth  of  actual  crops  per  acic. 

I  know  what  they  do,  and  I  know  what  the  possibilities  of  success 
there  are.  The  reason  I  make  that  statement  is  this,  that  without 


HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS.  763 

doubt  there  will  be  a  lot  of  soldiers  who  would  be  in  favor  of  selecting 
farms  in  their  own  communities,  and  who  believe  that  you  should 
back  the  soldier  wherever  he  wants  to  go.  That  is  fair.  If  he  can  not 
pick  up  and  leave,  put  him  on  a  farm  at  home;  but  you  owe  it  to  the 
man  who  is  willing  to  go  to  provide  him 'with  the  best  public  lands 
that  you  can  obtain  under  any  form  of  action  possible,  or  I  should 
say  public  or  private  lands,  but  where  public  lands  are  open  they 
are  the  best  for  the  purpose.  These  lads  are  no  longer  tied  to  their 
homes,  as  they  were  before  they  went  into  the  Army.  They  have 
learned  to  hold  up  their  heads,  and  they  have  met  conditions  far  more 
difficult  to  overcome  than  any  they  will  ever  meet  on  a  new  piece  of 
land.  Pioneering  is  nothing  to  them  now.  I  did  not  go  overseas 
myself,  but  I  know  what  they  met,  and  I  know  something  of  what 
they  met  on  this  side.  I  know  that  they  will  not  be  afraid.  I  say  to 
you  that  if  you  provide  one  good  tract  of  land,  or  one  of  the  very 
best  that  this  country  affords,  and  will  say  to  the  soldiers  who  want 
to  make  homes  on  it, "  This  is  the  best  thing  we  have  and  the  best  thing 
we  can  find;  come  upon  it,"  gentlemen,  they  will  come.  That  is  my 
idea:  and  then,  I  say,  go  ahead  and  develop  that  tract. 

Do  not  content  yourself  with  simply  putting  in  a  few  improve- 
ments that  will  make  it  possible  for  a  man  to  go  on  there,  but  make 
it  desirable  for  a  man  to  go  on  there.  Build  him  roads,  build  him 
schoolhouses,  and  it  is  a  question  whether  you  should  build  churches, 
because  you  get  pretty  close  to  him  there,  but  build  a  community 
center  of  some  kind  and  give  him  a  telephone  and  the  things  that 
go  to  make  a  place  look  very  desirable  and  inviting.  As  soon  as 
you  give  him  a  home  there  he  is  a  good  citizen  for  life.  He  has  no 
Bolshevistic  or  anarchistic  tendencies  and  he  does  not  throw  bombs. 
Really  that  is  the  serious  thing,  and  if  you  would  get  5,000  men 
safely  planted  on  farms  you  would  have  done  a  great  wrork,  let  alone 
placing  100,000  men  on  farms. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  a  son  of  Congressman  Green,  of  Iowa? 

Mr.  GREEN.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Were  you  born  in  Iowa? 

Mr.  GREEN.  Yes.  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  When  did  you  leave  there? 

Mr.  GREEN.  In  1912. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  read  the  statement  of  Judge  Boies  be- 
fore this  committee  ? 

Mr.  GREEN.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  your  opinion  of  the  views  of  Judge 
Boies? 

Mr.  GREEN.  To  my  mind — and  I  do  not  speak  for  anyone  else 
when  I  express  my  opinion  of  the  statement  made  by  Judge  Boies, 
and  I  do  not  care  to  be  in  the  position  of  speaking  for  anybody  in 
the  Iowa  delegation — but  from  my  own  conversations  with  members 
of  the  Iowa  delegation — my  opinion  is  that  his  statement  does  not 
represent  the  opinion  of  the  Iowa  delegation.  Further  than  that,  I 
do  not  care  to  go. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Does  his  statement  represent  your  opinion? 

Mr.  GREEN.  Xo,  sir.  I  know  from  my  own  knowledge  of  the  con- 
ditions in  the  State  of  Iowa,  and  I  have  been  back  there  frequently 
since  1013.  that  it  is  practically  impossible  for  a  man  to  go  on  an 


764  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Iowa  farm  on  a  shoe  string  or  with  a  short  supply  of  cash  and  ever 
make  his  payments.  I  left  Iowa,  as  did  a  lot  of  other  people,  to  go 
somewhere  that  offered  opportunities  to  young  men,  and  the  biggest 
portion  of  the  people  in  my  own  community  in  Idaho  came  from 
Iowa,  Illinois,  and  Nebraska.  They  came  for  the  same  reason  that  I 
did,  and  in  the  short  space  of  time  that  they  have  been  there  they 
have  made  themselves  independently  rich,  whereas,  if  they  had  re- 
mained in  Iowa  and  those  other  States,  they  probably  would  have 
been  tenants  to-day.  I  can  feel,  at  least,  a  little  sympathy  for  thw 
men  in  Iowa  because,  I  grant  you,  that  it  is  a  plainful  thing  to  have 
your  people  leaving,  but  the  thing  that  we  are  taught  to  consider  is 
what  is  the  best  thing  for  this  country.  Iowa  is  a  great  and  grand 
State,  but  she  has  made  her  pile.  The  people  there  are  doing  well, 
and  if  there  is  any  soldier  there  who  wants  to  find  a  home  somewhere 
else  there  is  no  reason  why  he  should  not  go. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  would  like  to  say  to  you,  Mr.  Green,  that  on  the 
Grand  Valley  project,  in  Colorado,  there  is  a  large  delegation  from 
Iowa.  They  have  an  Iowa  society  and  an  annual  Iowa  celebration. 
They  are  a  very  fine  class  of  people. 

Mr.  GREEN.  The  same  thing  prevails  with  us  out  there  in  Idaho. 
There  are  a  lot  of  them  scattered  along  the  Snake  River,  all  the  way 
up  and  down. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Are  you  satisfied  that  the  men  who  have  left  Io\va  and 
gone  out  in  your  present  vicinity  have  done  better  than  they  could 
have  done  had  they  remained  in  the  State  of  Iowa  ? 

Mr.  GREEN.  I  am  confident  that  they  have,  because  most  of  them 
came  out  there  with  very  small  capital.  They  invested  what  they 
had  largely  in  improvements,  because  they  were  given  time  in  which 
to  pay  for  their  land.  They  developed  lands  and  they  produced 
wonderful  crops.  They  produced  wonderful  crops,  husbanded  their 
resources,  and  saved  enough  money  to  pay  for  their  land.  A  good 
many  of  them  are  now  hiring  a  good  part  of  their  work  done.  They 
have  made  a  lot  of  money  by  clean  and  honest  efforts,  and  in  th-j 
increase  in  the  value  of  their  property.  They  bought  land  at  $25 
per  acre  for  the  water  rights,  and,  as  I  recall,  50  cents  per  acre  for 
the  land.  The  day  before  I  came  down  here  a  piece  of  that  land  was 
under  discussion  in  my  office.  One  man  said  to  another,  "  I  want  to 
buy  your  farm."  The  other  gentleman  sitting  in  the  office  said, 
"  What  will  you  give  me  for  the  farm  ?  "  The  other  replied,  "  $450 
per  acre  in  cash." 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  do  you  mean  by  saying  they  paid  $25  per 
acre  for  the  water  right  and  50  cents  for  the  land?" 

Mr.  GREEN.  I  think  that  is  the  provision  in  reference  to  Gary  Act 
projects. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Fifty  cents  per  acre  for  the  land  and  $25  per  acre 
for  the  water  rights? 

Mr.  GREEN.  Yes,  sir;  50  cents  per  acre  for  the  land. 

Mr.  SMITH.  What  opportunity  has  a  poor  young  man  born  and 
reared  on  a  farm  to  get  a  foothold  in  the  State  of  lowu '( 

Mr.  GREEN.  I  should  say  he  had  none.  I  would  not  attempt  to 
do  it  if  I  were  a  farmer.  I  have  studied  farming  conditions  prob- 
ably more  closely  than  persons  who  are  not  farmers  ordinarily  do, 
and  I  do  not  believe  that  would  be  possible,  assuming  that  hi>  can 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  765 

not  have  just  unlimited  backing  and  unlimited  time  in  which  to  pay 
for  his  land.  I  was  talking  to  Mr.  Kennedy  day  before  yesterday, 
and  he  said  that  a  piece  of  land  down  in  his  part  of  the  State  of 
Iowa  had  just  sold  for  $450  per  acre.  I  said,  ''  Do  you  think  that 
a  man  could  go  on  land  in  that  community  with  nothing  at  all  and 
ever  pay  for  it  ?  "  He  said,  "  I  do  not  think  it  would  be  possible." 
And  that  is  true,  gentlemen;  it  can  not  be  done.  They  have  not  the 
productive  soil;  they  have  not  the  initiative,  and  they  are  not  ag- 
gressive enough.  They  do  not  farm  with  the  same  pep  and  energy 
that  they  have  on  one  of  those  irrigated  tracts.  In  the  case  of  the 
irrigation  project,  the  community  spirit  is  there;  everybody  is  striv- 
ing to  get  ahead  and  to  have  the  best  farm.  The  farmer  out  there 
wants  it  said  that  he  has  a  wonderful-looking  farm.  It  is  the  spirit 
of  the  thing,  and  they  go  ahead.  It  is  all  new  blood,  and  they  are 
aggressive  in  that  country. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  think,  then,  that  Iowa  and  other  Middle 
Western  and  Eastern  States  have  not  the  productive  soil  that  you 
have  in  Idaho  and  farther  west,  and  do  you  think  that  this  bill  will 
have  a  tendency  to  attract  soldiers  from  those  other  States  to  the 
western  country? 

Mr.  GREEN.  Not  necessarily  to  the  western  lands.  I  prefaced  my 
statement  by  saying  that  I  was  not  familiar  with  the  undeveloped 
lands  in  other  sections  of  the  country.  I  have  been  through  the 
South,  but  I  am  not  familiar  with  the  conditions  there;  but  wher- 
ever a  man  can  get  cheap  and  productive  lands  and  the  best  land, 
there  he  will  go. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  do  not  think  it  could  be  done  in  Iowa? 

Mr.  GREEN.  It  is  not  at  all  possible. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  So  that  this  proposition  would  have  a  tendency  to 
induce  men  or  the  soldiers  to  leave  Iowa  and  go  there  ? 

Mr.  GREEN.  I  imagine  so.  There  is  a  State  or  two  through  the 
Middle  West  that  has  nothing  to  offer — absolutely  nothing  to  offer. 
The  people  were  leaving  before  the  war.  They  were  not  soldiers, 
and  they  had  money. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  What  would  you  say  as  to  New  York  State  ? 

Mr.  GREEN.  I  am  not  sufficiently  familiar  with  the  conditions  there 
to  speak  of  that.  I  have,  of  course,  heard  a  great  deal  about  the 
abandoned  farms,  and  I  have  talked  with  people  who  have  gone 
over  that  situation.  I  have  talked  with  aggressive  farmers  who 
thought  it  was  possible  to  develop  those  lands.  I  have  looked  over 
this  section  of  the  country;  and  if  somebody  will  give  me  a  piece 
of  land  here,  I  could  make" it  a  go,  regardless  of  the  fact  that  a  lot  of 
these  people  have  failed. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  What  do  you  mean  by  saying  if  somebody  would 
give  you  a  piece  of  that  land? 

Mr.  GREEN.  If  I  could  get  it  in  such  a  way  that  I  could  pay  for  it. 
That  is  what  I  meant. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  It  depends  on  how  much  you  would  have  to  pay 
for  it? 

Mr.  GREEN.  Yes,  sir;  I  could  not  carry  a  heavy  interest  load  of 
10  per  cent. 

I  believe  that  is  all  I  have  to  say.  I  favor  very  intensely  the 
Lane  bill. 


766  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIEFxS. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  The  Lane  bill? 

Mr.  GREEN.  The  Mondell  bill  or  the  Lane  project. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  think  that  the  Government  should  aid  only 
those  soldiers  who  care  to  farm? 

Mr.  GREEN.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  think  they  should  extend  the  same  sort  of 
assistance  and  aid  to"  all  the  soldiers  ? 

Mr.  GREEN.  To  go  beyond  this  plan,  I  would  not  attempt;  but  I 
feel,  as  does  every  soldier,  that  sooner  or  later,  as  the  needs  become 
apparent,  the  Government  will  help  them. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  think  that  in  addition  to  this  bill  the  Gov- 
ernment will  probably  offer  aid  to  all  the  soldiers  ? 

Mr.  GREEN.  I  imagine  so.  This  touches  only  a  few  of  them.  It  is 
one  step,  to  my  mind. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Of  course,  you  know  that  this  bill  proposes  to  au- 
thorize an  appropriation  of  $500,000,000? 

Mr.  GREEN.  I  understand  that;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  think  there  will  be  further  appropriations  ? 

Mr.  GREEN.  Without  question.  Not  in  a  year  or  two  years,  but  I 
do  not  think  this  work  will  be  over  for  40  years. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Of  course,  you  realize  that  in  order  to  be  fair  with 
all  of  the  soldiers  that  something  should  be  done  to  assist  them  if 
they  need  assistance  or  desire  assistance? 

Mr.  GREEN.  Yes,  sir;  I  recognize  that. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Regardless  of  whether  they  live  in  cities  or  upon 
farms  ? 

Mr.  GREEN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  made  the  statement  that  this  measure  takes 
care  of  a  very  small  percentage  of  them. 

Mr.  GREEN.  Yes,  sir.  I  think,  however,  that  it  is  an  admirable 
measure,  because  it  takes  care  of  those  few,  and  I  think  that  will 
work  greater  good  to  the  country  at  large  than  any  other  assistance 
that  can  be  offered  to  the  soldier. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  If  you  take  this  cost  of  $500,000,000  to  take  care  of 
100,000  of  them,  at  the  same  rate,  how  much  would  it  cost  the  coun- 
try to  take  care  of  all  of  them? 

'Mr.  GREEN.  I  do  not  think  your  hypothesis  is  sound,  for  this  rea- 
son, that  we  are  working  upon  the  assumption  that  a  goodly  por- 
tion of  this  money  will  be  returned  to  the  Government.  You  are 
simply  lending  credit  to  these  men,  if  your  organization  is  sound. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Well,  of  course,  that  would  be  true,  no  matter  how 
great  the  appropriation  that  was  desired.  That  would  be  true  if 
you  should  lend  money  to  the  city  soldier  to  place  him  in  a  home  in 
the  city. 

Mr.  GREEN.  Yes,  sir ;  the  proposition  is  the  same.  You  simply 
advance  them  the  wherewithal  that  they  can  not  get  in  any  other 
way  in  order  to  safely  establish  them  in  homes. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  You  expressed  very  grave  doubts  as  to  the  possi- 
bility of  a  man  who  has  not  the  price  of  an  Iowa  farm  ever  being 
able  to  acquire  an  Iowa  farm.  Now,  looking  forward  to  the  future 
of  your  native  State  for  another  generation,  what,  in  your  opinion, 
Avoiild  be  expected  to  happen  in  that  Stntao,  say.  80  yours  from  now 
when  the  present  owners  have  passed  away?  What  is  likely  to  be 
true  in  regard  to  citizenship,  etc.,  in  Iowa,  in  another  generation  1 


HOMES  FOB  SOLDIERS.  767 

Mr.  GREEN.  I  do  not  know  that  I  catch  your  idea,  but  my  observa- 
tion is  that  a  great  number  of  farms  are  handed  down  from  genera- 
tion to  generation  in  the  State  of  Iowa — that  is,  directly  from  the 
farmers  themselves  and  from  landowning  city  people. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  You  get  my  question  only  in  part.  Now,  let  us 
assume  that  the  average  farm  family  in  Iowa  would  consist  of  four 
persons,  and  that  is  a  fair  assumption,  possibly.  The  Iowa  farm  of 
average  size  could  not  well  supply  a  farm  to  each  of  the  four  mem- 
bers of  the  family,  but  we  will  assume  that  one  of  those  members 
inherited  enough  from  his  father  to  pay  for  one-fourth  of  a  farm, 
or  one-fourth  of  a  farm  similar  in  value  to  that  of  his  father.  Now, 
as  I  understand  it,  you  say  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  that  mem- 
ber of  the  family  to  ever  pay  for  a  farm  equal  to  that  of  his  father  ? 

Mr.  GREEN.  I  would  not  say  that  it  would  be  an  impossible  thing. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  "  Practically  impossible,"  I  believe  was  the  term  you 
used. 

Mr.  GREEN.  You  have  got  to  classify  the  man  who  is  doing  the  job. 
It  is  hot  fair  to  say  that  the  men  who  go  on  those  farms  are  above 
the  average.  They  may  be  supermen  in  some  respects,  but  they  are 
average  men  in  others.  You  can  not  say  that  the  young  man  who 
undertakes  this  is  a  wizard  at  farming  or  that  he  has  remarkable 
executive  and  financial  ability,  but  if  he  has  not  those  qualities,  he 
can  not  do  that,  unless  he  has  got  a  father  who  will  back  him  to  the 
limit  and  will  carry  him  from  one  year  to  another,  giving  him  advice 
and  every  aid  and  assistance  that  a  father  can  give  his  son,  including 
stocking  the  farm,  buying  the  automobile,  and  building  the  house. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Would  you  regard  that  father's  advice  and  assist- 
ance of  any  considerable  value  to  a  young  man  starting  into  the 
farming  or  in  any  other  line  of  business? 

Mr.  GREEN.  Yes,  and  no;  and  I  want  to  explain  what  I  mean. 
A  father's  advice  is  always  valuable,  without  question,  but  to  say  that 
a  father's  advice  on  farming  is  better  than  the  advice  of  some  younger 
men  is  a  serious  question.  My  observation  has  led  me  to  believe  that 
lads  from  Iowa  who  went  to  Ames,  that  wonderful  agricultural 
school  they  have  there,  where  they  have  taken  the  farms  over  and 
have  handled  the  farms,  are  making  them  more  productive  than 
their  fathers  did.  In  other  words,  father's  advice  has  to  be  over- 
ruled on  some  questions  sometimes. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Pursuing  that  thought  a  little  further,  I  assume 
from  a  remark  that  you  made  just  when  I  came  into  the  room  that 
you  have  the  impression  that  possibly  some  members  of  this  com- 
mittee would  desire  to  tie  down  the  soldiers  to  their  various  com- 
munities. Is  it  your  impression  that  it  is  the  view  of  some  mem- 
bers of  the  committee  that  they  would  object  to  a  man  going  to 
Idaho  if  he  desired  to  do  so  ? 

Mr.  GREEN.  I  am  not  sufficiently  familiar  with  the  attitude  of  the 
committee  to  indicate,  but  I  know  that  that  impression  or  that  idea 
prevails  in  the  minds  of  some  men  in  Congress.  I  know  that  they 
have  the  view  that  the  men  should  not  leave  their  home  States. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Putting  it  another  way,  would  you  say  that  before 
he  gets  any  assistance  he  must  leave  his  home  State? 

Mr.  GREEN.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  there  are  probably 
several  States  in  the  Middle  West  that  could  not  provide  lands  for 
133319—19 49 


768  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

a  project.  Now,  would  you  say  that  if  there  is  a  young  man  in  one 
of  those  States  who  desires  governmental  aid  he  shall  leave  such 
State;  that  is,  that  he  shall  leave  Iowa,  Kansas,  Illinois,  or  Indiana? 

Mr.  GREEN.  By  governmental  aid,  do  you  mean  assistance  in  pro- 
curing agricultural  lands? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Yes. 

Mr.  GREEN.  I  would  say  that  if  you  could  handle  this  proposition 
just  as  a  banker  who  makes  loans  to  men  would  handle  it,  then,  as 
a  practical  question,  that  is  not  serious.  If  you  used  the  same  cold- 
blooded judgment  in  determining  whether  or  not  it  is  possible  for 
a  young  soldier  in  Iowa  to  buy  $'200,  $250,  or  $300  land,  that  would 
not  disturb  you  much  as  a  practical  question.  You  must  be  cold- 
blooded in  this  matter  if  it  is  to  be  a  revolving  fund.  You  must 
use  the  same  business  judgment  and  acumen  that  a  banker  does 
when  he  makes  a  loan.  If  it  can  be  done,  give  it  to  him. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Of  course,  you  would  safeguard  the  loan  which 
the  Government  would  advance  wherever  the  soldier  was  loc,ated? 
If  he  settled  in  your  own  State,  or  in  your  present  State,  or  in 
Iowa,  you  would  have  the  loan  safeguarded  in  the  same  way? 

Mr.  GREEN.  Yes,  sir;  absolutely. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  In  the  case  of  a  young  man  who  has  little  or  noth- 
ing in  the  way  of  meeting  an  advance  payment,  where  would  you 
say  it  would  be  easiest  for  him  to  get  backing  on  ordinary  bankers' 
collateral,  if  that  is  what  the  Government  would  require  of  him? 
Would  it  be  easier  for  him  to  get  that  backing  in  his  home  com- 
munity where  he  is  known  or  1,000  miles  away  from  home  among 
strangers  ? 

Mr.  GREEN.  I  should  say  that  if  he  is  entitled  to  credit,  his  home 
banker  will  carry  him  in  South  America. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Would  you  as  willingly  back  a  man  of  your  ac- 
quaintance in  South  America  as  you  would  where  you  could  see  him 
and  consult  with  him  frequently? 

Mr.  GREEN.  I  probably  exaggerated  the  situation  somewhat,  but 
knowing  the  conditions  in  my  home  community  as  I  do  know  them 
an  Iowa  banker  would  prefer  to  lend  money  to  a  man  out  there  to 
get  an  irrigated  farm  in  Idaho,  because  the  opportunities  for  suc- 
cess are  a  thousandfold  greater. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Of  course,  we  have  heard  many  times,  and  I  have 
no  doubt  it  is  true,  that  there  are  wonderful  opportunities  for  a 
limited  number  of  men  in  Idaho.  It  is  a  limited  number,  and,  as 
I  understand  it,  a  decidedly  limited  number. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  Iowa  ? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  In  Idaho.  The  opportunities  there  are  for  a  de- 
cidedly limited  number.  But,  taking  the  general  proposition,  and 
speaking  from  the  standpoint  of  a  lender  of  money,  is  that  con- 
tention of  any  value?  What  I  mean  is  this:  I  myself  have  invested 
in  quite  a  good  many  pieces  of  land,  and  I  have  found  from  years 
of  experience  that  it  makes  a  vast  amount  of  difference  whether  a 
man  is  in  the  home  community  where  I  can  see  him  and  consult 
with  him.  Have  you  had  any  practical  experience  along  similar 
lines? 

Mr.  GREEN.  No,  sir;  I  can  not  say  that  I  have.  I  am  rather  a 
borrower  than  a  lender. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  might  explain  your  plan. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  769 

Mr.  BENHAM.  When  you  have  had  some  experience  along  that 
line  you  will  not  be  enthusiastic  about  wanting  to  back  the  young 
man  away  from  home — that  is,  if  your  experience  should  be  what 
mine  has  been. 

Mr.  GREEN.  I  do  know  this,  that  many  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
dollars  of  Iowa  capital  has  been  sent  out  to  be  loaned  in  the  State 
of  Idaho.  I  know  that  those  people  back  there  are  glad  to  send 
that  money  to  us. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  As  I  understand  it,  that  is  at  a  rate  of  interest 
that  is  fairly  high.  I  do  not  know  that  anything  would  be  gained 
by  pursuing  this  any  further,  but  what  I  say  is  based  upon  personal 
information  that  I  have  gathered  after  several  years  spent  in  what 
I  am  pleased  to  call  a  reclamation  service.  I  buy  farms  that  in  the 
course  of  five  years  I  can  reclaim  in  the  sense  in  which  I  use  the 
term,  and  I  insist  that  I  can  reclaim  them  by  giving  them  personal 
attention  and  by  applying  personal  methods  of  my  own  instead  of 
governmental  methods — more  cheaply  than  the  Government.  I  in- 
sist that  I  can  improve  those  farms  more  cheaply  than  the  Govern- 
ment could  do  it,  and  I  insist  that  I  or  any  other  individual  can 
afford  to  sell  those  farms  to  the  individual  so  as  to  make  it  easier 
for  him  to  pay  the  interest  than  can  the  Government. 

Mr.  GREEN.  I  do  not  think  your  proposition  is  sound,  and  I  will 
tell  you  why:  You  have  not  got  a  farm — I  do  not  care  where  you 
go — that  is  equal  to  the  farms  in  my  community.  I  am  basing  that 
statement  on  my  own  knowledge  of  farming  conditions  through  the 
Middle  West,  where  they  doubtless  have  wonderful  farms.  I  do 
not  know  where  you  come  from,  but  I  know  what  the  crop  produc- 
tion is,  and  I  know  what  the  cost  of  production  is. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  That  is  one  question 

Mr.  GREEN  (interposing).  That  determines  the  advantage  that  the 
man  who  goes  on  the  land  will  have. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  You  refer  to  the  objection  of  the  Middle  West,  and 
you  western  people  seem  to  assume  that  the  farmer  boys  are  all 
going  to  Idaho. 

Mr.  GREEN.  No,  sir;  they  are  not. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  assume  that  there  are  wonderful  possibilities  for 
a  limited  number  in  your  State.  I  say  that  not  only  'from  what  I 
know  of  it,  but  from  what  other  persons,  or  my  former  neighbors, 
have  told  me,  and  I  believe  that  is  true;  but  at  the  same  time  there 
is  a  vastly  greater  number  of  men  to  be  helped  than  can  be  helped  in 
your  State.  I  might  say,  in  brief,  that  in  the  community  where  I 
live  I  have  a  farm  worth  $8,000  that  I  offered  recently  to  a  man  whom 
I  very  much  admire.  I  said  to  him,  "  You  go  and  crop  20  acres  of 
that  165  acres  and  give  me  that  one  crop  and  I  will  make  you  a  deed 
to  the  farm."  He  would  have  145  acres  for  that  season  and  the  whole 
farm  or  the  use  of  the  wfrole  farm  later  on.  I  know  that  is  a  good 
thing  and  I  know  that  there  are  not  many  propositions  in  the  country 
that  are  superior.  As  a  general  proposition  I  know  that  I,  or  any 
other  energetic  individual,  can  place  a  man  on  a  farm  more  cheaply 
than  the  United  States  Government  will.  Putting  it  in  another 
way,  you  know,  I  assume,  that  there  are  farms  in  Iowa,  New  York, 
and  Indiana  where  the  improvements  have  been  made  on  the  basis 
of  $1  per  day  labor  or  $2  per  day  labor,  and  the  men  performed  labor 


770  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIEES. 

in  the  way  they  did  years  ago  and  not  as  men  labor  for  the  Govern- 
ment nowadays.  Those  improvements  have  been  made  vastly  cheaper 
than  the  Government  of  the  United  States  under  this  Lane  bill  or 
Mondell  bill  will  make  improvements. 

Mr.  GREEN.  That  may  be  true,  and  bearing  that  out,  in  talking  with 
Mr.  Kennedy  the  other  day,  he  said  that  when  he  first  came  to  his 
part  of  the  country  a  man  took  him  out  a  little  ways  and  showed  him 
a  good  farm,  with  wonderful  improvements  upon  it.  He  said  that 
the  house  and  barns  and  other  improvements  were  valued  at  $8,000, 
but  the  man  offered  it  to  him  for  $3,000.  Yet  he  did  not  buy  it. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  According  to  the  testimony  before  this  committee  it 
is  evidently  true  that  there  are  vast  numbers  of  farms  in  the  United 
States  on  which  the  buildings  are  in  fair  condition  and  the  farms 
themselves  are  good,  but  they  have  been  practically  abandoned  for 
various  reasons.  Another  thing  I  am  trying  to  draw  out  in  this  long 
series  of  rambling  questions  is  this,  Is  there  any  good  reason  why  it 
would  be  more  dangerous  for  the  Government  to  back  up  a  boy  or 
give  him  a  low  rate  of  interest  on  one  of  these  segregated  projects  in 
the  State  of  New  York,  along  the  Hudson  River,  where  he  can  buy 
a  farm,  as  the  evidence  before  this  committee  shows,  for  the  present 
value  of  the  improvements,  than  on  a  Government  project?  Is  it  any 
more  dangerous  for  the  Government  to  back  up  a  boy  on  that  sort  of 
farm,  or  segregated  farm,  than  it  would  be  to  back  him  up  on  one  of 
those  Government  projects? 

Mr.  GREEN.  In  answer  to  your  question,  I  will  say  this,  that  if  the 
man  you  put  on  this  segregated  tract  in  the  State  of  New  York  is  a 
thoroughly  trained  farmer,  familiar  with  all  the  things  that  are 
necessary  to  develop  that  piece  of  land,  and  if  he  has  the  benefit  of 
expert  advice 

Mr.  BENHAM  (interposing).  With  his  father's  advice. 

Mr.  GREEN.  Not  father's  advice,  but  the  advice  of  an  agricultural 
expert,  because  father  has  not  made  any  great  showing  there,  or  the 
land  would  have  increased  in  value. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  It  is  not,  nevertheless 

Mr.  GREEN  (interposing).  Let  me  finish  that  statement,  please.  If 
he  is  a  man  of  tremendous  energy,  or  if  you  could  find  a  man 
who  possesses  the  qualifications  and  advantages  I  have  named, 
then  I  say  that  he  will  do  just  as  well,  and  probably  better, 
but  of  those  things  are  not  available,  then  I  say  that  where  the  men 
can  be  collected  closely  together,  or  where  the  element  of  competition 
enters  into  it,  and  where  the  opportunity  to  observe  is  good,  and 
where  you  have  trained  experts  to  advise  those  men,  then  there  is  a 
greater  opportunity.  I  say  that  because  if  he  does  not  know,  he  has 
got  to  learn.  Then,  how  will  he  learn  ?  His  father  can  not  give  him 
advice,  because  his  father  will  be  in  practically  the  same  condition 
that  he  will  be  in,  or,  otherwise,  the  land  values  there  would  be  up, 
and  people  would  be  there  in  great  numbers  farming. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  You  are  doubtless  familiar  with  the  fact  that  prac- 
tically all  of  the  Northern  States — I  do  not  know  about  the  South — 
have  in  each  county  an  agricultural  expert. 

Mr.  GREEN.  I  believe  that  is  true. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  When  ho  is  furnished  by  a  college  of  his  own  State, 
he  is  probably  better  qualified  to  give  advice  about  conditions  in  that 


HOMES  FOR   SOLDIERS.  771 

State  than  a  man  who  was  sent  from  Washington  would  be.  Would 
it  not  seem  that  a  man  who  has  been  trained  in  the  agricultural  col- 
lege of  the  State  where  he  is  serving,  and  who  knows  the  farming 
conditions  in  the  State,  would  be,  at  least,  as  competent  as  some  man 
sent  by  Secretary  Lane  to  be  the  guardian  of  the  boys  on  the  project? 

Mr.  GREEK.  Absolutely;  but  let  me  ask  you,  do  they  have  them  in 
New  York  State  upon  the  farms? 

Mr.  BEXHAM.  I  can  not  say  for  New  York  State.  The  gentleman 
representing  New  York  State,  I  think,  is  not  here  this  morning. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  I  remember  correctly  the  New  York  State  Bul- 
letin says  that  about  half  of  the  counties  have  them,  although  I  am 
not  positive  about  that. 

Mr.  BEXHAM.  Speaking  for  my  own  State,  I  thoroughly  believe 


that  we  have  as  good  an  agricultural  college  as  the  country — or  world, 
ter — has  in  it ;  but  speaking  of  the  man  in  my  own  county, 


for  that  matter — has 


the  gentleman  selected  last  year  for  my  county  was  not  reemployed 
for  this  present  year  or  for  this  coming  year.  We  observed  that 
when  he  came  to  that  county  he  employed  a  stenographer  under  politi- 
cal advice,  and  he  stayed  in  his  office.  While  I  was  at  the  county  seat 
probably  three  times  a  week,  he  had  been  there  nine  months  before  I 
ever  met  him.  It  seemed  that  he  was  stationed  there  simply  to  draw 
his  salaiy  and  provide  a  place  for  the  stenographer;  hence,  in  the 
judgment  of  those  who  had  the  selection,  he  was  not  reemployed. 
Now.  one  of  the  representatives  of  the  Interior  Department,  in  testi- 
fying before  the  committee,  practically  put  it  this  way :  "  Put  the 
men  on  our  projects  and  we  will  practically  guarantee  100  per  cent 
success."  Is  it  not  possible  that  many  of  those  projects  would  have 
upon  them  energetic  and  competent  men  who  had  been  trained  by 
State  agricultural  schools;  and  is  it  not  possible  that  you  might  have 
just  as  efficient  men  on  your  reclamation  projects,  where  the  matter 
would  be  vastly  more  vital  than  on  the  segregated  farms — is  it  not 
entirely  possible  to  have  such  energetic  and  competent  men,  and  yet, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  might  we  not  expect  to  have  there  a  number  of 
overseers  selected  here  in  Washington? 

Mr.  GREEX.  In  other  words,  your  question  is,  Is  there  any  distinc- 
tion between  the  agricultural  expert  who  might  be  selected" here  and 
the  one  who  might  be  selected  in  your  county?  I  say  there  is  just  as 
good  opportunity  to  select  a  good  man  from  one  place  as  the  other. 
Possibly  the  Government  has  better  facilities  and  opportunities  for 
making  the  selection  and  a  greater  territory  to  draw  from.  In  other 
words,  it  is  entirely  possible  to  get  as  good  a  man  in  one  place  as 
another. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Putting  it  another  way,  our  own  agricultural  college 
is  much  older,  and  it  has  had  a  much  longer  time  to  develop  experi- 
ence than  has  the  Interior  Department.  Now,  I  will  pursue  that 
question  a  moment  further,  and  then  I  will  desist:  Assuming  that 
there  would  be  such  a  policy,  and  we  know  there  are  many-  good 
schools  that  can  guarantee  that  the  man  sent  out  will  be  a  large  suc- 
cess in  any  line,  as  I  understand  it,  the  success  or  failure  of  your 
reclamation  project  would  depend  vastly  more  upon  the  efficiency  of 
the  overseer  or  adviser  than  would  be  the  case  on  the  segregated 
farm,  where  the  young  man  is  surrounded  by  those  who  are  capable 
of  advising  him. ' 


772  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  GREEN.  That  is  wrong,  because  from  my  observation  of  the 
matter,  if  one  man  follows  the  direction  of  your  supervisor,  as  he 
should  be  designated,  and  his  efforts  are  not  successful,  all  of  them 
immediately  know  about  it.  You  could  not  get  a  project  in  my  home 
State  and  fill  it  up  with  men  from  this  section  of  the  country.  They 
will  not  let  you  do  that;  but  they  would  be  going  on  the  project  with 
men  who  had  been  thoroughly  trained  from  childhood,  and  they  will 
not  follow  the  advice  of  the  supervisor  who  is  absolutely  wrong.  If 
that  should  happen,  they  would  soon  sound  the  alarm. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  promised  not  to  ask  any  further  question;  but  I 
do  not  quite  understand  one  statement  yon  have  made.  You  assume 
in  one  case,  or  in  the  case  of  the  segregated  project,  that  the  man 
must  necessarily  be  ignorant,  while  you  say  that  the  man  on  your 
project  would  have  been  trained  from  childhood. 

Mr.  GREEN.  Let  us  say  that  one-half  of  them  know  their  business 
and  that  the  other  half  do  not,  or  let  us  assume  that  one-fourth  of 
them  know  their  business  and  that  the  other  three-fourths  do  not. 
The  one-fourth  on  the  irrigation  project  who  know  their  business, 
will  furnish  advice  and  information  to  the  other  three-fourths.  You 
have  them  scattered  all  over  the  project. 

Mr.  BEN  HAM.  As  I  understand  it,  in  a  general  way.  you  have 
talked  to  a  lot  of  sailor  boys,  and  I  want  to  ask  you  what  their  at- 
titude would  probably  be  toward  a  Government  overseer,  whether  h" 
is  a  major  or  a  colonel  or  whether  he  is  some  other  representative  of 
the  Government.  At  the  present  time  you  know  the  state  of  mind  of 
the  average  soldier,  and  what  it  might  be  toward  a  Government  boss 
on  a  project. 

Mr.  GREEN.  Do  not  call  him  an  Army  officer  who  would  be  over 
the  men.  You  would  not  get  away  with  anything  like  that;  but  as 
for  a  man  in  that  position,  let  him  be  the  daddy  of  the  outfit.  Such 
a  thing  is  possible,  and  it  is  practical  in  its  operation.  They  are 
doing  it  out  there  on  our  projects.  They  have  an  agricultural  ex- 
pert there  who  is  thorougly  well  trained  and  familiar  with  that 
work.  He  does  not  come  out  and  nag  you  to  death  by  telling  you  to 
do  this,  that,  or  the  other  thing,  but  they  go  to  him  and  ask  for 
what  they  want. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  That  is  assuming  that  there  are  no  such  things  as 
inefficient  overseers  on  reclamation  projects. 

Mr.  GREEN.  No,  sir;  they  are  human,  and  they  fail  just  as  people 
fail  in  other  branches  of  lire. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  want  to  ask  Mr.  Benham  a  question :  Are  your 
reclamation  operations  confined  to  the  one  county  where  you  live? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Yes;  or  in  my  own  community.  Let  me  give  one 
illustration  of  that,  if  it  is  proper  to  detain  this  witness.  I  am 
experimenting  at  the  present  time  with  a  man  who  is  57  years  old, 
and,  who,  up  to  55  years  of  age,  had  not  accumulated  a  dollar. 
At  55  he  asked  to  go  on  a  farm  of  mine.  He  did  well,  and  sur- 
prised me  and  the  neighbors  by  doing  well,  and  he  has  probably 
made  about  one-third  enough  to  pay  for  the  farm  in  question.  Of 
course,  the  natural  corollary  was  to  be  asked  about  the  purchase  of 
the  farm.  Believing  that  even  at  that  age  it  would  be  possible  for 
him  to  succeed,  I  told  him  to  put  his  profits  in  implements,  to  supply 
himself  with  stock,  and  to  buy  the  f?rm  and  pay  for  it  as  he  could, 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  773 

paying  an  amount  for  the  rent  each  year.  Now,  I  am  thoroughly 
satisfied  that  after  five  years  he  will  have  a  farm  that  will  be  a  source 
of  income  to  him  in  his  old  age.  Taking  a  case  like  that,  success  is 
only  possible  for  individuals  who  know  the  conditions.  It  would  not 
be  possible  for  Secretary  Lane,  or  any  other  power  1,000  miles  away, 
to  take  a  case  like  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  long  have  you  been  operating  that  way  ? 

Mr.  BEN  HAM.  Twelve  years. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  many  individual  experiences  have  you  had? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  It  might  be  just  as  well  to  give  me  20  minutes  or 
half  an  hour. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  your  experience  would  be  valuable  to  the 
committee. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Do  you  sell  land  upon  as  liberal  terms  as  this  bill  pro- 
vides ? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Yes ;  but  I  am  using  6  per  cent  money,  and  I  can  not 
give  the  boys  4  per  cent  money. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Do  you  object  to  this  bill  because  it  gives  money  at  4 
per  cent? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  No;  I  certainly  do  not. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  do  not  sell  on  40  years'  time? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  would  if  it  were  necessary.     . 

Mr.  MAYS.  I  want  to  ask  Mr.  Green  one  question.  Mr.  Green,  you 
are  a  son  of  Congressman  W.  R.  Green,  of  Iowa? 

Mr.  GREEN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MAYS.  You  left  Iowa  and  went  to  Idaho? 

Mr.  GREEN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Was  your  father  a  Member  of  Congress  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  GREEN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Suppose,  in  addition  to  being  a  Member  of  Congress, 
he  was  engaged  in  reclaiming  lands  in  his  immediate  vicinity  and 
selling  to  the  people  there  and  charging  them  6  per  cent  interest, 
would  you  thing  that  this  bill  would  be  a  hardship  upon  him  and 
take  away  from  him  some  of  the  customers  that  might  come  to  him 
if  the  bill  should  not  be  put  into  operation? 

Mr.  GREEN.  I  hope  not. 

Mr.  MAYS.  You  think  there  would  still  be  left  plenty  of  prospective 
purchasers  for  your  father  in  Iowa? 

Mr.  GREEN.  They  have  no  difficulty  in  selling  their  land  back  there, 
and  they  are  changing  hands  remarkably  fast. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Even  though  it  should  enter  into  competition  with  your 
father,  you  would  still  be  in  favor  of  the  bill  ? 

Mr.  GREEN.  Yes,  sir;  certainly.    He  does  not  fear  it. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  In  your  opinion,  this  measure  will  not  offer  any  aid 
to  any  soldier  who  "went  to  war  from  the  State  of  Iowa  unless  he 
desires  to  leave  that  State  and  go  to  some  other? 

Mr.  GREEN.  I  wouldn't  got  that  far,  but  I  do  say  that  as  a  prac- 
tical proposition  it  won't  help  very  many  of  them.  Now,  if  you  will 
apply  the  cold  analysis  of  the  banker  in  determining  whether  or  not 
the  soldier  who  proposes  to  take  over  a  piece  of  Iowa  land  under 
this  plan — if  you  will  analyze  the  situation  just  as  a  cold-blooded 
banker  would  do,  if  he  can  'handle  it,  then  all  right,  give  it  to  him. 
I  don't  think  he  can.  I  know  that  his  judgment  is  not  good  if  he 


774  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

tries  it,  unless  he  is  forced  to  stay  in  the  State  of  Iowa  for  some  rea- 
son and  can't  get  out  to  a  hundred  other  places  in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  You  naturally  think  there  would  be  a  preference  for 
some  other  State  ? 

Mr.  GREEN.  I  absolutely  do. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Mr.  Green,  it  is  all  right  for  the  Iowa  boy  who  in- 
herits a  farm,  or  one  who  can  marry  a  girl  that  has  inherited  the 
farm,  but  if  he  is  the  son  of  a  poor  man,  a  tenant,  or  has  no  wife  who 
inherits  an  estate,  your  judgment  is  that  there  is  no  way  that  he  can 
acquire  a  farm  that  at  all  compares  with  the  Government  opportun- 
ity of  giving  him  4  per  cent  and  40  years'  time  ? 

Mr.  GREEN.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  And  for  that  reason  it  is  such  an  uphill  proposition 
for  a  poor  boy  to  ever  get  a  piece  of  ground  that  costs  $400  an  acre 
that  it  is  almost  prohibitive. 

Mr.  GREEN.  He  would  much  prefer  to  go  somewhere  else  or  stay  in 
the  city. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  And  he  can't  put  in  his  whole  life  trying  to  get  title 
to  20  acres,  possibly,  in  a  State  of  that  kind,  where  he  could  go  out 
and  in  three  or  four  or  five  years  acquire  a  home,  a  farm,  in  a  new 
country. 

Mr.  GREEN.  And  of  equal  productivity  and  yielding  an  equal 
return. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  feel  that  instead  of  that  being  a  hardship  upon 
him,  it  would  not  only  be  a  great  benefit  to  him,  but  a  benefit  for 
the  country  for  him  to  go  out  and  take  that  chance? 

Mr.  GREEN.  Yes,  sir;  and  in  three  years  he  would  have  a  piece  of 
land  that  would  rent,  in  cash,  if  he  came  from  some  sections  of  the 
country,  at  least  from  $20  to  $40  an  acre.  I  have  handled  in  the  last 
year  a  number  of  leases  where  men  are  paying  $45  an  acre  in  cash 
for  the  use  of  tracts  of  land  varying  from  10  to  40  acres. 

Mr.  MAYS.  More  than  the  land  originally  cost,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  GREEN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MAYS.  How  long  ago  was  it  purchased  at  the  price  you  men- 
tioned awhile  ago? 

Mr.  GREEN.  I  should  imagine — well,  I  don't  know.  It  was  in  1909 
and  1910,  I  think. 

Mr.  'SMITH  of  Idaho.  All  of  that  was  along  in  1905  and  1906. 

Mr.  MAYS.  And  it  was  then  purchased  for  $25  per  acre? 

Mr.  GREEN.  Yes,  sir.  It  was  not  developed  within  that  time,  how- 
ever. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Just  one  question,  suggested  by  Mr.  Taylor — there 
is  a  possibility  that  a  circumstance  like  this  might  happen:  Here 
are  two  soldier  boys,  sons  of  the  same  father,  from  your  native  State 
of  Iowa.  The  one  decides  that  he  would  like  to  buy  his  father's  farm. 
Let  us  suppose  that  the  boys  each  have  $5,000.  'The  father's  farm 
could  be  bought  for  $7,500.  The  other  boy,  who  has  his  $5,000,  would 
prefer  to  follow  your  example  and  go  to  Idaho.  Now,  that  boy  goes 
to  Idaho  and  settles  on  a  project.  According  to  the  Lane  bill,  he 
would  have  assistance  offered  him ;  he  would  be  loaned  money,  let  us 
say  $2,000 — I  don't  know  what  the  figures  now  are — and  he  would 
be  given  40  years  in  which  to  pay  that  back  at  a  low  rate  of  interest. 
The  boy  who  stayed  on  the  father's  home  farm,  he  also  wants  to 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  775 

borrow  $2,500  or  $2,000,  or  whatever  the  case  may  be.  He  is  also  a 
soldier.  Would  you  say  to  the  boy  who  wants  to  go  to  your  present 
State :  "  I  am  in  favor  of  backing  you,  giving  you  governmental 
aid,"  but  to  the  boy  who  wants  to  settle  on  his  father's  farm,  "We 
can't  do  anything  for  you?" 

Mr.  GREEN.  No;  but  again  your  hypothesis  is  not  sound,  for  this 
reason 

Mr.  BENHAM  (interposing).    Why  not?    Show  me. 

Mr.  GREEN.  That  there  is  no  land  that  amounts  to  anything  in 
the  State  of  Iowa  that  can  be  bought  for  the  figure  you  name. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Suppose  $100,000  then. 

Mr.  GREEN.  In  the  next  place,  if  he  has  got  the  $5,000,  he  can  go 
down  to  the  Federal  loan  bank  and  get  his  money  at  a  very  nice 
rate  of  interest  with  fine  terms  of  payment,  and  he  doesn't  need  any 
particular  help  from  the  Government. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Can't  the  boy  who  joins  your  project  go  to  the  land 
bank  also,  or  to  private  banks,  and  get  the  money?  In  short,  why 
make  a  difference?  Why  say  to  the  boy  who  wants  to  stay  at  home: 
"  You  can't  get  a  cent."  But  to  the  fellow,  it  doesn't  make  any 
difference  what  his  circumstances  are,  who  wants  to  go  away:  "We 
will  help  you"? 

Mr.  GREEN.  Did  I  say  that? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Your  answers  to  the  last  question  would  imply  that. 

Mr.  GREEN.  No;  I  said  if  he  could  stand  the  cold  analysis  of  the 
banker  on  his  application  for  a  loan,  give  it  to  him. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  we  have  Gov.  Spry 
with  us  this  morning. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Chairman,  before  you  take  that  up,  may  I  pre- 
sent a  matter  to  the  committee  which  is  very  urgent? 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  present  a  matter  to  the  committee 
this  morning — it  will  not  take  me  but  a  moment — and  I  would  like 
to  get  the  action  of  the  committee  on  it. 

There  are  two  contending  parties — 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho  (interposing).  Does  it  pertain  to  this  bill? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well,  that  is  for  the  committee  to  determine. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  is  on  your  own  time. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes;  this  is  a  matter  that  I  am  bringing  as  a  Repre- 
sentative to  the  committee  for  their  action,  so  that  I  may  answer  my 
constituents.  There  are  two  contending  parties,  one  in  favor  of 
constructing  a  project  and  the  other  is  opposing  it.  They  have  had 
the  view  that  this  bill  is  for  the  purpose  of  this  particular  project, 
and  have  been  advised  that  that  is  the  fact.  I  have  telegraphed  them 
that  it  is  not  the  fact;*  that  this  bill  is  general  in  its  character  and 
relates  to  no  special  project.  They  want  to  know  the  status  of  the 
bill  and  want  me  to  ask  that  the  committee  hold  up  the  bill,  the  con- 
sideration by  the  committee — final  consideration  and  hearings— 
until  their  committee  can  come  to  Washington  and  be  heard  upon 
this  special  project.  And  I  may  say  this,  that  I  saw  the  Secretary 
this  morning  and  showed  him  my 'telegrams  pro  and  con;  I  also 
saw  Director  Davis,  and  he  says  that  this  bill  does  not  involve  any 
special  project;  that  none  have  been  considered  by  them,  that  none 
are  under  investigation  by  them  as  special  projects,  and  that  it  is 
entirely  up  to  the  department  to  determine  what  will  be  done  after 


776  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

the  legislation  is  enacted.  But  in  consideration  of  my  duty  to  myself 
and  to  my  constituents,  I  present  this  matter  this  morning  and  ask 
that  the  representatives  may  have  an  opportunity  to  be  heard,  and 
the  hearings  be  continued  until  they  have  that  right  in  regard  to  this 
special  project. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Raker  a  question.  When  you 
use  the  words  "  special  projects,"  Mr.  Raker,  do  you  qualify  those 
words  in  the  least?  Do  you  mean  projects  of  a  designated  character, 
or  do  you  mean  individual  designated  projects? 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  mean  individual  designated  projects. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  Judge,  you  know,  and  they  ought  to  know 
as  well  as  any  member  of  this  committee,  that  this  bill  does  not  take 
up  any  particular  projects.  That  is  left  to  a  selection  hereafter. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  do,  Mr.  Chairman,  know  it  specifically  and  dis- 
tinctly, but  there  have  been  telegrams  sent  and  the  impression  is  that 
this  bill  is  the  purpose  of  an  individual  project. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Well,  I  never  heard  of  that  before. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Won't  Congress  have  to  act  on  any  particular  desig- 
nated project? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  certainly. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  Judge,  you  know  it  is  not  the  function  of  this 
committee  to  take  up  individual  projects.  It  is  absolutely  not  within 
our  province  to  take  any  evidence  in  connection  with  any  particular 
project. 

Mr.  VAILE.  These  gentlemen  can  have  an  opportunity  to  be  heard 
on  any  particular  designated  project  when  it  comes  before  the  Ap- 
propriations Committee. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Why  can't  Judge  Raker  give  them  the  information 
they  want? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  Judge  Raker  is  authorized  to  give  them 
the  information  on  behalf  of  this  committee. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  would  suggest,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  it  might  be  well, 
in  order  to  satisfy  those  people,  for  the  chairman  of  this  committee 
to  send  also  a  telegram  to  these  parties,  saying  that  there  are  no — 
that  there  can  be  no  special  project  selected  yet,  and  not  only  that, 
but  the  committee  would  have  no  authority  to  consider  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  would  be  glad  to  cooperate  with  Judge  Raker  in 
conveying  to  them  the  information,  and  obviate  the  necessity  of 
their  coming  on  here. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  And,  incidentally,  the  hearings  are  closed. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Judge  Raker,  who  are  these  telegrams  from?  Are 
they  from  soldiers? 

Mr.  RAKER.  No ;  these  are  from — one  is  from  Charles  L.  Hampton, 
president  of  the  board  of  directors  of  the  Anderson-Cottonwood 
irrigation  project,  whom  I  know  very  well.  Another  is  from  an  old 
friend  of  mine 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho  (interposing).  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  had  at 
least  a  score  of  inquiries  from  people  interested  in  individual  proj- 
ects, and  I  have  told  them  all  that  it  is  a  matter  this  committee  has 
nothing  to  do  with. 

Mr.  RAKER.  One  is  from  Capt.  Dozier,  commander  of  the  Shasta 
County  Service  Men's  Association.  Another  one  is  from  the  North- 
ern California  Counties'  Association,  consisting  of  five  counties.  An- 
other one  is  from  Mr.  Francis  Carr,  of  Reading,  whom  I  have  known 


HOMES  FOR.   SOLDIERS.  777 

for  many  years.  Another  one  is  from  Julius  Alexander  and  Russell 
Brownell,  of  Susanville,  whom  I  have  known — I  have  known  Mr. 
Alexander  for  35  years.  They  have  been  advised  that  the  bill — my 
bill,  which  is  the  same  as  the  rest — carries  a  special  appropriation  for 
a  particular  project,  and  they  want  to  send  representatives  here  to 
speak  upon  it.  I  have  told  them  that  this  committee  has  not  con- 
sidered any  individual  projects  and  would  not  do  so,  but  notwith- 
standing that,  as  their  Representative,  I  make  the  request  of  the 
committee  this  morning  and  submit  the  matter. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Without  objection,  the  chairman  will  be  glad  to 
cooperate  with  you  in  wiring  to  those  gentlemen. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  will  not  hear  them? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Did  you  make  a  motion  that  they  be  heard  ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes;  I  will  make  a  motion  that  they  be  heard. 

Mr.  BENIIAM.  It  might  be  of  interest  to  the  committee,  Judge,  to  in 
a  general  way  let  us  understand  who  it  is  that  is  in  favor  and  who  it 
is  that  is  opposed  to  the  project. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  don't  think  it  is  necessary  for  this  committee  to 
go  into  the  matter  of  who  is  opposed  to  those  projects  there  and  who 
is  supporting  them.  We  have  nothing  to  do  with  that. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  That  is,  not  in  opposition  to  this  general  proposition 
but  is  in  opposition  to  some  other  project. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  this  bill.  The  only  mat- 
ter that  you  are  concerned  in  is  to  quiet  the  apprehensions  of  those 
people  that  we  are  going  to  take  up  some  particular  project  in  this 
committee  ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Which  we  are  not  going  to  do. 

Mr.  MAYS.  I  think  he  has  already  quieted  them  by  telegraphing 
them. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Are  they  representing  soldiers  or  private  parties? 

Mr.  RAKER.  This  is  solely  a  matter  of  irrigation,  a  particular  proj- 
ect, known  as  the  Iron  Canyon  project  in  northern  California.  One 
county  and  the  people  below  are  in  favor  of  it ;  the  county  above  and 
five  additional  counties  are  opposed  to  it.  It  is  in  my  district  and  I 
propose  to  act  as  their  Representative  in  Congress,  and  when  either 
side  desires  to  be  heard,  I  am  always  ready  to  present  it,  but  shall  not 
take  the  attitude  of  an  advocate  on  either  side,  and  I  present  it  to 
the  committee  now  at  their  request. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  You  have  presented  it  to  the  wrong  com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  That  should  go  to  the  Appropriations  Committee 
some  time.  That  is  where  that  will  go. 

Mr.  VAILE.  Let  them  be  heard  by  the  Appropriations  Committee 
then. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Has  this  project  you  speak  of  anything  to  do  with 
this  bill? 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  don't  think  so,  to  be  honest  with  you. 

Mr.  WHITE.  In  other  words,  these  fellows  are  a  little  bit  worried, 
aren't  they  ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  They  are  worried  about  some  other  fellows  getting  a 
project  instead  of  them. 


778  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Why  wouldn't  it  be  a  good  plan  to  inform  them  that 
this  committee  is  considering  general  legislation  and  not  any  special 
projects? 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  is  the  action  of  the  committee  now,  Mr.  Chair- 
man? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  going  to  cooperate  with  you  in  wiring  to 
those  people  that  it  is  not  necessary  for  them  to  be  heard. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  will  support  your  motion,  Judge  Raker,  if  you 
make  the  motion. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  take  it  that  the  committee  would  not  hear  them  if 
they  came? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes — well,  I  wouldn't  put  it  that  way ;  but  there  is 
no  necessity  for  them  to  come  on  relative  to  this  specific  project. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Mr.  White  hits  the  nail  on  the  head.  We  are  not 
considering  projects;  we  are  considering  legislation  and  not  individ- 
ual projects. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Why  not  let  the  record  show  that  Judge  Raker  pre- 
sented their  request  faithfully  and  fully,  the  committee  faithfully 
and  fully  considered  it,  and  the  consideration  resulted  in  the  decision 
that  we  are  in  nowise  concerned  in  idividual  projects,  and  in  nowise 
prejudiced  that  case. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  the  record  shows  that. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  that  that  is  the  judgment  of  the  committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  will  be  the  judgment  of  the  committee  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  will  be  the  judgment  of  the  committee,  without 
objection. 

Now  we  will  hear  you,  Gov.  Spr}T.  Please  state  your  ri;<nie  and 
residence. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  WILLIAM  SPRY,  OF  SALT  LAKE  CITY,  UTAH. 

Mr.  SPRY.  Mr.  Chairman,  since  coming  into  the  room  I  was 
handed  this  letter  by  Representative  Hays,  he  having  received  it  for 
me  from  Mr.  Meehan,  who  was  here  two  days  ago,  desirous  of  appear- 
ing before  the  committee.  I  might  say  that  Mr.  Meehan  entered  the 
service  as  an  enlisted  man — the  Naval  Aviation  Corps — and  he  was 
mustered  out  as  an  ensign,  and  he  has  expressed  his  views  upon  the 
bill  which  you  are  considering  now,  and  I  would  ask  if  there  is  any 
objection  to  having  it  go  into  the  record  as  the  presentation  of  Mr. 
Meehan 's  views? 

Mr.  MAYS.  Mr.  Meehan  was  here  present  for  two  or  three  days 
wanting  to  be  heard  and  he  had  to  leave. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Without  objection,  the  letter  will  be  placed  in  the 
record. 

(The  letter  referred  to  follows:) 

NEW  YORK,  N.  Y., 

June  21.  1919. 
Honorable  CHAIRMAN  AND  MEMBERS  OF  THE 

HOUSE  COMMITTEE   ox    PURI.TC   LANHS, 

WoiMngion,  D.  C. 

GENTLEMEN:  I  regret  that  business  in  New  York  compelled  me  to  leave 
Washington  before  I  had  an  opportunity  to  appear  before  the  committee  in 
support  of  the  Mondell  soldier  sell  lenient  bill  For  1\vo  days  during  the  past 
week,  after  hearings  were  reopened,  I  listened  with  keen  interest  to  the  testi- 


HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS.  779 

mony  given,  and  since  coming  East  I  have  carefully  read  the  first  two  install- 
ments of  the  printed  testimony. 

May  I  state  that  I  am  chairman  of  the  soldier  settlement  committee  of  the 
Utah  Chapter  of  the  American  Legion;  that  I  was  a  delegate  from  Utah — 
t •!.•< -it'll  by  the  service  men — to  the  national  caucus  of  the  Legion  which  was 
held  in  St.  Louis  in  May  of  this  year;  that  while  there  I  was  appointed  the 
western  member  of  a  committee  of  seven  which  is  in  charge  of  the  launching 
of  the  publication  of  the  American  Legion  Weekly,  which  is  to  be  the  official 
organ  of  the  Legion  and  which  will  begin  publication  early  next  month. 

My  service  during  the  war  was  in  the  Naval  Aviation  branch,  in  which  I 
enrolled  as  a  second-class  seaman,  and  rose  to  the  rank  of  ensign.  I  volun- 
teered for  this  service  in  August,  1917,  and  was  accepted  and  enrolled  in  Sep- 
tember, 1917.  I  saw  service  from  Boston  to  Miami,  Fla.,  in  this  country,  and 
was  in  Scotland,  England,  France,  and  Belgium  during  my  overseas  service. 
Practically  half  of  the  time  that  I  was  in  service  I  was  in  the  enlisted  per- 
sonnel and  the  other  half  an  officer,  so  I  believe  I  can  say  I  had  an  oppor- 
tunity to  know  something  of  the  feelings  and  opinions  and  sentiments  of 
both  classes  of  men.  Having  been  a  newspaper  man  in  civilian  life,  I  had 
the  advantage  of  being  something  of  a  trained  observer  of  men  and  opinions, 
as  well. 

Ever  since  there  began  discussions  of  the  possibility  of  soldier-settlement 
legislation  I  have  taken  a  keen  interest  in  it.  Two  years  of  my  life  I  spent 
on  a  western  irrigation  project,  and  my  subsequent  newspaper  work  in  the  West 
kept  me  in  constant  touch  with  such  development.  I  believed  in  soldier-settle- 
ment legislation  as  a  splendid  opportunity  for  men  who  had  been  in  service  to 
become  real  home  and  land  owners,  and  I  am  firmly  of  the  opinion  that  no  one 
piece  of  reconstruction  legislation  means  so  much  to  the  Nation  and  to  the 
soldier  as  does  the  one  you  now  have  under  consideration. 

Studying  the  testimony  given  before  your  committee,  I  conclude  that  in  the 
minds  of  some  Members  there  is  a  question  of  how  best  to  do  something  for  the 
largest  number  of  men  who  saw  service  in  the  European  war.  That  is  natural 
and  praiseworthy.  But  may  I  suggest  to  the  committee  that  there  were  in  the 
service  thousands  of  men  who  do  not  require  and  who  do  not  seek  to  have  any- 
thing done  for  them?  There  were  millionaires  and  men  of  large  and  moderate 
means,  men  who  had  their  own  businesses  and  professions  and  trades,  to  which 
they  will  return,  and  the  experiences  which  they  have  had  in  service  will  so 
broaden  and  strengthen  them  that  their  recompense  will  come  in  the  ability  to 
think  better  and  live  better  and  work  better  because  of  the  privilege  or  service 
to  their  Nation  which  they  had  the  honor  of  performing. 

On  the  other  hand,  every  man  wrho  was  in  service  sincerely  desires  that  the 
soldier  and  the  sailor  shall  have  an  opportunity  of  becoming  a  substantial, 
independent  citizen.  To  thousands  of  those  who  seek  bigger  and  broader  fields 
than  those  in  which  they  were  active  previous  to  the  war  the  soldier-settlement 
project  offers  an  attractive  opportunity.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  average  ex- 
service  man  seeks  or  wants  a  gift — he  wants  an  opportunity.  He  believes  his 
Government  should  give  it  to  him  or  to  his  comrades.  If  he  sincerely  and  earn- 
estly desires  an  opportunity,  one  requiring  the  use  and  development  of  his  own 
initiative  and  ability,  he  could  have  it  through  the  soldier-settlement  plan.  By 
5  or  10  or  15  years  of  honest,  determined  effort  he  could  become  a  successful 
landowner,  contributing  to  the  wealth  and  prosperity  of  his  country — his 
country  more  than  it  is  that  of  any  other  American,  because  of  the  fact  that  he 
has  had  the  privilege  of  offering  his  life  to  it. 

Unquestionably  the  most  representative  gathering  of  ex-service  men  that  has 
ever  been  held  was  the  national  caucus  of  the  American  Legion,  held  in  St. 
T.ouis  last  month.  Fifteen  hundred  men,  in  round  numbers,  representing  every 
branch  of  service,  and  every  rank  from  general  to  buck  private,  men  selected  by 
popular  vote  in  their  respective  States  and  communities,  composed  this  body. 
There  were  men  who  bore  medals  for  distinguished  bravery  and  service,  gold 
chevroned  and  silver  chevroned  men,  men  whose  service  had  brought  them  to  the 
full  vigor  of  mental  and  physical  manhood,  men  of  whom  war  had  demanded 
a  lung  or  a  limb.  This  convention,  gentlemen,  went  on  record  unanimously  as 
being  in  favor  of  soldier-settlement  legislation  such  as  you  are  considering. 
Hence.  I  believe  there  can  be  no  serious  question  in  the  minds  of  any  of  you.  be 
you  from  Michigan,  or  Indiana,  or  Kansas,  or  the  far  West,  but  that  the 
service  men  desire  this  legislation.  They  do,  and  although  the  vast  majority 
of  them  could  not  tell  you  concretely  the  exact  form  they  desire  it  to  take,  they 
expect  you  to  decide  that  problem  for  them. 


780  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

I  have  given  considerable  thought  and  attention  to  the  relative  merits  of  the 
community  settlement  plan,  and  to  the  one  which  Congressman  Ferris  has 
called  the  misnamed  "  infiltration  "  plan,  the  plan  of  individual  selection  in  set- 
tled communities.  I  believe  there  is  much  to  be  said  in  favor  of  both,  and  in  my 
opinion  the  best  measure  would  be  one  that  would  permit  of  the  application  of 
both  methods.  As  I  understand  the  interpretation  of  the  Interior  Department, 
the  Mondell  bill  would  permit  the  use  of  both.  A  group  of  five  or  six  farms,  for 
example,  or  of  perhaps  a  hundred  within  the  confines  of  one  county,  where  they 
could  easily  be  supervised  by  a  county  agent,  would  constitute  a  community; 
because  there  is  not  a  reason  why  it  should  take  a  50,000-acre  tract  to  constitute 
a  community,  is  there? 

But  I  do  want  to  urge  the  necessity  of  supervision,  both  for  the  welfare  of 
the  soldier  and  to  safeguard  the  interests  of  the  Government.  Through  county 
agents  it  seems  to  me  that  it  would  be  altogether  practical  to  properly  supervise 
50  or  100  farms  in  a  county,  even  though  they  were  not  all  contiguous.  Then, 
the  question  of  the  advisability  of  using  the  community  plan,  it  seems  to  me, 
would  necessarily  be  governed  largely  by  the  conditions  of  rural  life  in  the 
various  sections  of  the  country.  There  is  much  truth  in  the  popular  song  of  the 
day  which  asks,  "How  are  you  going  to  keep  them  down  on  the  farm  after 
they've  seen  Paree?"  The  average  soldier  is  not  going  to  take  to  rural  life 
unless  it  offers  civilized  attractions.  If,  under  the  individual-selection  plan, 
or  "  infiltration,"  he  can  settle  in  a  community  which  suits  him,  where  he  has 
ties  of  family  or  friendship,  where  the  farmers  are  progressive  and  modern  in 
their  practices,  he  should  be  able  to  settle  there  successfully  and  contentedly. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  he  is  to  go  into  a  territory  where  rural  community  life  is 
not  at  its  best,  where  there  are  not  the  diversions  which  his  tastes  and  ex- 
periences will  demand,  it  seems  as  if  the  community  development  plan  would 
be  best,  because  the  plan  can  provide  for  the  establishment  of  the  tilings  he  re- 
quires. And  so  I  am  inclined  to  urge  that  the  administrators  of  the  soldier- 
settlement  act  be  given  broad  discretionary  powers  in  the  matter  of  selecting 
localities  and  methods.  Never  doubt  for  one  moment  that  if  the  administrators 
do  not  comply  within  reason  to  the  popular  demands  of  the^eneticiai-ies  of  this 
legislation  the  said  beneficiaries  will  make  it  known  in  no  uncertain  terms. 
And  the  administrators,  being  desirous  of  making  the  work  a  success,  are 
certain  to  heed  the  popular  voice  of  the  soldiers. 

When  I  first  read  some  of  the  testimony  of  opponents  of  this  bill  and  this 
legislation,  I  was  angry  clean  through,  and  as  an  ex-service  man  was  glad  I  was 
not  present  when  they  were  on  the  stand.  I  might  have  acted  unwisely.  How- 
ever, I  am  sure  that  the  gentlemen  of  this  committee  are  altogether  too  broad 
and  big  to  allow  their  decisions  to  be  biased  by  persons  with  purely  selfish  and 
narrow-gauged  motives.  I  am  sure  that  the  great  majority  of  the  Members  of 
Congress  desire  to  do  the  right  thing  for  the  soldier,  and  only  want  to  be  con- 
vinced, and  sure  of  what  that  right  thing  is.  But,  in  passing,  I  can  not  refrain 
from  advancing  the  thought  that  some  of  the  opponents,  notably  Dr.  Atkeson, 
whom  I  hope  misrepresented  more  farmers  than  he  represented,  seem  to  desire 
to  do  something  for  the  soldier,  providing  it  does  not  affect  them  and  does 
something  for  them  at  the  same  time.  Great  heavens,  gentlemen,  who  if  not 
the  ex-soldier  has  a  better  right  to  become  the  competitor  of  the  established 
farmer  or  anyone  else?  Four  millions  of  men  who  responded  to  the  call  of 
national  duty  will  do  pretty  much  as  they  please  in  the  next  50  years,  as  long 
as  what  they  desire  to  do  is  legitimate.  And  they  will  unmake  the  political 
careers  of  men  who  choose  the  path  of  selfishness,  either  toward  the  soldier 
or  anyone  or  anything  else.  Because  if  there  is  any  one  great  lesson  that  our 
service  has  taught  us,  it  has  taught  us  the  nobility  and  strength  of  cooperative, 
unselfish  effort — just  the  sort  of  effort  that  has  saved  America  from  Prussian- 
ism.  Listen  to  the  overwhelming  sentiment  of  our  American  Legion  caucus  in 
St.  Louis — that  it  was  not  our  desire  to  "  take  something  from  the  Government, 
but  rather  to  put  something  into  the  Government."  It  would  be  the  part  of 
political  sagacity  for  men  in  public  life  to  keep  that  pronouncement  in  mind. 

In  conclusion  may  I  speak  briefly  of  the  matter  of  a  cash  bonus?  The  St. 
Louis  caucus  unanimously  defeated  a  resolution  that  asked  for  a  bonus  of  six 
months'  pay.  It  was  the  sense  of  the  caiunis  that  we  wanted  an  opportunity, 
not  a  gift.  Soldier  settlement  appeals  to  thousands  of  us  as  an  opportunity,  and 
I  feel  quite  sure  that  the  ex-soldier  in  Detroit,  or  Chicago,  or  New  York  who 
does  not  desire  to  take  advantage  of  this  particular  opportunity  will  support 
it  just  as  ardently  if  he  feels,  as  he  is  sure  to  do,  that  it  will  mean  opportunity 
to  a  large  number  of  his  "  buddies."  For  the  soldier  is  strong  for  his  "buddy  " 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  781 

and  wants  him  to  succeed  and  be  happy  and  prosperous.  If  the  Congress  de- 
sires to  give  the  men  a  bonus,  I  have  no  doubt  that  it  would  be  acceptable  to 
the  majority,  but  I  do  not  believe  that  same  majority  would,  thinkingly,  want 
it  to  defeat  the  purposes  of  soldier  settlement  legislation,  which  has  a  far  deeper 
and  more  fundamental  purpose  than  a  bonus  ever  could  have.  The  bonus  would 
be  a  gift ;  soldier  settlement  would  be  a  loan,  a  governmental  guaranty  of  a 
future  that  would  admirably  increase  our  agricultural  wealth  and  make  thou- 
sands of  prosperous,  home-owning  citizens  who  have  America  and  her  welfare 
deeply  at  heart. 

Very  respectfully, 

J.  LEO  MEEHAN. 

Mr.  SPRY.  I  want  to  say,  gentlemen,  in  opening,  that  I  am  very 
strongly  in  favor  of  the  bill  which  you  are  considering.  I  was  ap- 
pointed by  a  committee  appointed  by  the  governor  of  the  State  of 
Utah  to  represent  that  committee  in  connection  with  the  other  gen- 
tlemen that  have  already  appeared  and  presented  their  views  with 
relation  to  this  bill  and  why  they  favor  its  passage. 

Sometime  ago,  in  collaboration  with  Secretary  Lane  and  in  line 
with  the  bill  which  he  presented,  I  think  at  the  last  Congress,  the 
governor  of  Utah  called  together  a  conference  of  the  various  Western 
States.  There  were,  I  think,  13  States  represented  at  that  time — not 
merely  the  arid  States  of  the  West,  but  States  representing  the  cut- 
over  lands — and  there  was  an  effort  made  to  have  the  States  repre- 
sented which  had  the  wet  lands,  or  the  lands  which  were  subject  to 
drainage,  in  attendance;  and  as  a  result  of  that  conference  a  resolu- 
tion was  adopted,  which  doubtless  you  have  before  you — I  have  a  copy 
of  it  in  Mr.  Lane's  report,  and  I  presume  that  is  before  the  commit- 
tee— in  which  that  conference  went  on  record  as  favoring  the  then 
so-called  Lane  bill  because  of  what  they  regarded  as  the  benefits  that 
would  accrue  from  that  bill  to  the  different  States  that  were  most 
vitally  interested. 

I  want  to  say  at  the  commencement  that  there  is  no  particular  local- 
ity that  I  have  any  desire  to  represent  as  against  any  other  locality. 
This  is  a  great  country,  and  there  is  no  question  in  my  mind  but  what 
in  every  locality  of  the  United  States  there  are  certain  lands  that  can 
be  benefited  by  the  provisions  of  this  bill.  For  instance,  the  waste 
lands,  or  the  lands  that  have  been  turned  out  or  forsaken  in  the  New 
England  States — and  you  will  find,  I  presume,  many  scores,  if  not 
many  hundreds,  of  just  such  farms  that  perhaps  originally  have  been 
productiA^e,  but  which  to-day  -are  not  in  use  at  all.  They  have  been 
abandoned.  You  will  find  thousands  upon  thousands  of  acres  in  the 
Northwest  and  in  the  North  of  cut-over  timberlands  that  I  think  the 
provisions  of  this  bill  could  be  applied  to. 

There  are  many  hundreds  of  thousands  of  acres  in  the  Southern 
States — wet  lands,  lands  subject  to  drainage — that  could  be  materially 
benefited  by  the  provisions  of  this  bill. 

There  are  also  the  arid  lands,  the  public  lands  of  the  West,  that 
could  be  materially  benefited.  So  that  I  don't  think  and  have  never 
regarded  this  bill  as  a  sectional  bill,  because  it  is  not;  and  if  a  proper 
apportionment  is  made  of  the  appropriation  which  the  bill  asks  for,  I 
can  imagine  that  every  State  would  receive  some  benefit  in  a  greater  or 
less?  degree.  If  there  are  any  States  that  could  not  be^benefited  by 
the  provisions  of  this  bill,  the  fault  is  not  with  the  bill ;  it  is  with  the 
State,  and  there  is  no  reason  why  the  problems  that  the  various  States 
have  had  to  deal  with  now  for  so  many  years  past  should  be  burdened 


782  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

upon  this  bill,  because  the  problem  of  Iowa,  for  instance,  has  been  a 
problem  to  the  State  of  Iowa  for  more  than  20  years.  According  to 
the  last  census  there  were  less  people  in  Iowa  in  1910  than  there  were 
in  1900,  and  the  people  have  volunatrily  left  Iowa  not  because  of  the 
fact,  perhaps,  that  they  could  not  make  a  living,  but  because  their 
ways  were  largely  hedged  up,  and  they  wanted  to  get  into  a  country 
of  broader  expanse,  and  it  appears  that  many  of  them  have  gone 
in  to  my  friend  Mr.  Smith's  country,  and  have  availed  themselves 
of  the  splendid  opportunities  that  the  State  of  Idaho  offers. 

There  is  another  reason.  Most  of  these  States,  particularly  the  Mid- 
dle Western  States,  and  many  other  States,  have  utilized  the  privi- 
leges that  have  come  to  them  from  the  Federal  Government  many 
years  ago,  and  which  have  of  recent  dates,  or  covering  a  period  of 
20  or  30  years  past,  come  to  the  western  States  in  the  way  of  the  pub- 
lic-land question,  and  they  have  disposed  of  their  public  lands  and 
have  received  the  benefits  of  the  sale  of  those  public  lands.  There  is 
scarcely  any  acreage  whatsoever  but  what  is  upon  the  assessment  roll 
of  those  various  States  which  have  disposed  of  their  public  lands, 
and  the  States  are  getting  in  every  respect  the  benefits  of  the  revenues 
derived  from  taxation.  That  is  not  true  largely  of  other  States.  . 

In  my  own  State,  for  instance,  there  is  still  approximately  73 
per  cent  of  the  entire  area  of  the  State  of  Utah  that  is  still  public 
domain.  So  that  27  per  cent,  perhaps,  of  the  area  of  Utah  is  carry- 
ing the  burden  of  the  73  per  cent.  We  are  policing  at  73  per  cent. 
The  children  located  upon  that  large  expanse  of  territory  are  being 
educated  at  the  expense  of  the  27  per  cent.  What  roads  are  built 
through  that  territory — and  of  necessity  roads  must  be  built  through 
there — roads  as  good  as  those  which  are  being  built  in  the  27  per 
cent — are  being  paid  for  by  the  27  per  cent.  So  that  there  are 
problems  existing  in  the  West,  and  what  I  say  of  Utah,  perhaps, 
is  true  of  every  other  State;  true  of  Idaho,  true  of  Colorado,  and  of 
every  one  of  the  public-land  States  of  the  West. 

So  that  there  are  problems  to  meet  there  that  are  not  being  met  in 
the  Middle  States,  and  to  my  mind  it  is  not  germane  to  the  bill 
to  undertake  to  saddle  the  problem  of  the  States  of  the  Middle 
West  upon  this  bill,  because  it  finds  no  place  there.  Now,  I  am  for 
the  soldier.  I  take  it,  however,  that  every  soldier  that  was  in  the 
war  can  receive  not  an  equal  benefit  from  this  bill,  because  in  the 
first  place  there  is  not  money  enough  to  go  around.  I  also  believe 
very  emphatically  that  there  is  a  very  large  percentage  of  the  soldiers 
who  will  not  want  to  a^ail  themselves  of  the  provisions  of  the  bill, 
because  financially  he  is  so  fixed  that  there  is  no  occasion  for  him 
to  ask  for  any  beneficent  legislation  at  the  hands  of  the  Federal 
Government  in  his  behalf.  And  yet  I  think  I  am  safe  in  saying  that 
in  so  far  as  the  soldier  himself  is  concerned — and  I  have  obtained 
this  from  men  who  have  attended  their  national  as  also  their  State 
conventions,  called  for  the  purpose  of  organization — I  am  very  well 
satisfied  that  they  are  unanimous,  whether  in  their  national  con- 
ventions or  in  their  State  or  district  conventions — that  they  are 
unanimously  in  favor  of  this  bill  because  of  the  good  that  it  might 
do  some  one  or  other  of  their  soldier  brethren. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Will  you  please  repeat  that  statement,  Governor? 
I  did  not  get  it. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  783 

Mr.  SPRY.  1  say,  I  believe  that  almost  unanimously 

Mr.  BEXHAM  (interposing).  I  did  not  understand  what  organiza- 
tion you  referred  to. 

Mr.  SPRY.  I  am  referring  now  to  the  American  Legion,  the  organi- 
zation that  has  been  effected  of  recent  date. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Wliat  is  the  American  Legion? 

Mr.  SPRY.  It  is  an  organization  of  returned  soldiers  and  sailors 
or  enlisted  men  who  were  engaged  in  the  war. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Is  that  the  organization  formed  at  St.  Louis  the  other 
day? 

Mr.  SPRY.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  there  was  a  national  organization 
effected  there,  and  I  know  in  my  own  State  and  probably  in  yours 
and  other  Western  States  there  have  been  State  organizations  ef- 
fected, and  they  are  proceeding,  I  think,  as  in  this  instance,  to  go 
on  record  in  favor  of  the  bill  because  of  the  help  that  it  will  extend 
to  the  soldier,  sailor,  or  marine. 

There  has  been  a  good  deal  said  with  relation  to  the  colonizing 
plan  of  the  people  of  Utah.  I  am  not  particularly  familiar  with 
the  plan  as  suggested  of  recent  date  by  Mr.  Hansen,  who  was  before 
you  the  day  before  yesterday.  I  take  it,  however,  that  that  is 
planned  upon  a  very  small  scale.  As  I  understand  he  hasn't  much 
more  than  perhaps  $100,000  to  prosecute  "the  work  of  the  plan,  but 
the  general  plan  of  colonization  on  the  part  of  the  people  of  Utah 
I  am  familiar  with,  having  lived  there  for  the  last  44  years,  and  that 
plan  has  been  very  much  of  a  success.  The  people  in  the  earlier  days 
of  settlement  of  the  West  naturally  flocked  to  the  stream  of  water, 
because  water  was  the  life  of  the  country.  It  was  before  the  days 
of  dry  farming  or  arid-land  farming,  and  it  was  necessary  in  order 
for  the  people  to  raise  their  bread  to  get  upon  the  streams  that 
flowed  from  the  mountains,  and  as  a  result,  two  or  three  or  more 
families  would  go  wherever  they  could  find  a  stream  of  water,  and 
it  so  happened  that  in  the  distribution  of  that  water  it  was  dis- 
tributed upon  small  tracts  of  land,  because  of  necessity  they  could 
only  cultivate  small  tracts. 

The  water  has  increased  and  where  in  some  instances  a  half  dozen 
families  located  upon  some  of  the  streams  of  the  State,  to-day  you 
will  find  a  population  of  from  one  to  t\vo  and  three  thousand  people. 
So  that  through  careful  adjudication  of  the  rights  of  the  stream  and 
the  various  distribution  that  has  been  made  of  the  water,  it  has 
been  made  possible  to  reclaim  a  very  great  deal  of  the  land  that 
would  otherwise  still  remain  in  its  virgin  state.  But  the  Interior 
Department  has  something  of  that  idea  in  mind  when  they  speak  of 
the  colonization  plan.  At  the  same  time  there  are  very  many  oppor- 
tunities offered  in  the  West,  and,  representing  the  West,  I  naturally 
speak  of  the  West  not,  however,  with  any  desire  to  be  detrimental 
in  what  I  say  to  any  other  part  of  the  country.  I  take  it  that  every 
other  part  is  capable  of  representing  its  own  interests,  but  there 
are  a  very  great  many  situations  out  there  that  can  very  properly 
be  reached,  and  very  successfully  reached,  even  under  the  provi- 
sions of  this  bill.  There  are  large  tracts  of  land  within  the  populous 
centers  of  many  of  the  Western  States  that  to-day  are  not  drawing 
water  for  irrigation  purposes,  and  if  the  Government  desires  to  go 
into  those  States  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  an  irrigation  sys- 
133319—19—50 


784  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

tern,  there  is  no  question  in  my  mind  but  what  they  can  find  suffi- 
cient land  in  one  body  to  establish  a  project  here  for,  say,  10  fami- 
lies, there  for  a  hundred  families,  and  so  on,  until  those  that  desire 
to  be  accommodated  can  undoubtedly  receive  that  accommodation. 

There  are  many  opportunities  in  the  West,  as  there  are  in  many 
other  parts  of  the  country.  There  are  many  opportunities  in  the 
South  that  can  be  availed  of,  or  that  are  available,  to  my  certain 
knowledge  in  my  travels  through  the  South. 

There  are  many  of  the  cut-over  lands  that  can  be  utilized,  and 
coming  on  east  in  company  with  a  gentleman  from  Alabama,  who 
is  a  Baptist  preacher,  I  was  informed  that  there  are  many  of  the 
lands  which  10  or  15  years  ago  were  selling  for  probably  $1  an  acre 
that  had  been  so  well  cared  for  in  the  meantime  that  to-day 
they  were  bringing  from  $75  to  $100  and  $150  an  acre.  So  that  I 
say  in  the  provisions  of  this  bill  there  is  no  reason  why  all  parts 
of  the  country  should  not  be  taken  care  of,  and  I  hope  that  the  com- 
mittee, and  I  hope  that  Congress,  will  not  consider  it  in  any  sense 
a  sectional  bill,  but  a  bill  to  provide  homes  for  the  men  who  want 
homes,  and  there  are  plenty  of  men  who  are  desirous  of  leaving  the 
various  States  in  the  Union  to  go  into  other  States.  I  know  my 
owrn  State  is  made  up  of  a  class  of  people  from  perhaps  all  of  the 
States  in  the  Union,  and  Incidentally  I  want  to  say  that  my  own 
State  has  furnished  largely  the  population — tliat  is,  the  pioneer  popu- 
lation— of  very  nearly  every  one  of  the  Western  States.  It  is  true 
of  Colorado ;  it  is  true  of  California ;  it  is  true  of  Idaho ;  it  is  true 
of  Arizona  and'of  Montana.  Washington  in  part,  and  Oregon,  and  all 
of  those  States  in  the  West.  The  young  r.ien  of  Utah  have  gone 
to  those  States  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  colonies,  and  I  take 
it  have  made  representative  citizens  of  the  States  which  they  have 
selected  in  their  work  of  development. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  don't  forget  Nevada. 

Mr.  SPRY.  No;  in  Nevada  they  have  done  very  much,  and  they 
have  done  very  much  in  Canada,  and  unfortunately  they  tried  to 
do  very  much  in  Mexico  and  they  did  not  meet  with  any  very  favor- 
able results  there.  A  great  many  of  them  have  come  back  home. 
Some  of  them  are  tied  up  so  tight  there  that  they  can't  get  back 
home,  but  a  great  many  people  have  come  back  from  Mexico,  and  in 
many  instances,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is  a  class  of  people  that  the 
church  is  trying  to  assist  to  obtain  homes,  because  they  come  back 
stripped  of  everything  they  have.  Some  of  them  haven't  sufficient 
clothing  to  wear. 

Now,  it  is  true  that  where  this  bill  can  not  reach  those  who  desire 
help,  you  have  your  system  of  Federal  farm  loans.  A  great  many 
people  of  the  West  are  availing  themselves  of  that  opportunity  to 
obtain  homes,  and  then  the  Western  States,  like  my  own  State, 
through  the  State  land  boards,  are  providing  a  way  by  which  many 
of  the  young  men  can  obtain  homes.  They  are  selling  the  land  at 
a  minimum  price  of  $2.50  an  acre,  and  from  that  to  $40  an  acre.  I 
know  while  I  was  governor  of  the  State  we  put  through  the  so-called 
Piute  project,  and  we  were  enabled  to  sell  to  the  people  who  desired 
to  go  upon  that  project — and  we  sold  to  them  regardless  of  where 
they  came  from,  whether  it  was  from  Iowa  or  from  Massachusetts 
or  from  Utah  or  any  other  State 

Mr.  TAYLOR  (interposing).  Or  from  Indiana? 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  785 

Mr.  SPRY.  I  think  \ve  have  some  from  Indiana.  We  sold  the  land 
?nd  the  water  at  actual  cost,  and  it  was  very  possible  for  those  people 
who  came  upon  that  particular  project  to  obtain  very  productive 
soil  at  a  figure  not  to  exceed  $38  to  $46  an  acre,  and  they  have  10 
years  to  pay  for  it.  That  is  the  limit  of  time  extended  by  the  State 
Land  Board  of  Utah.  They  were  sold  the  land  by  making  a  pay- 
ment of  one-tenth  of  the  purchase  price  down,  and  the  remaining 
nine-tenths  was  divided  into  a  period  of  10-year  payments  at  the 
rate  of  5  per  cent  per  annum.  In  addition  to  that,  the  State  has 
also  provided  a  loan  agency  and  the  legislature  has  given  preference 
to  farm  loans  at  a  rate  not  to  exceed  6  per  cent,  and  there  are  many 
other  people  who.  after  they  have  secured  homes  through  the  State 
by  buying  State  lands,  have  availed  themselves  of  the  opportunity 
to  borrow'  money  that  way  in  order  that  they  might  make  the  neces- 
sary improvements. 

And  I  want  to  say  in  connection  with  this  matter,  that  while  the 
title  has  remained  in  the  State  in  all  lands  that  have  been  sold  by 
the  State,  the  purchaser  was  taxed  each  year  according  to  the  equity 
that  he  might  have  in  the  land.  In  other  words,  if  he  has  made  five 
payments,  ne  is  taxed  just  one-half  the  value  that  the  assessor  might 
put  upon  that  particular  tract  of  land  which  he  has  purchased.  It 
has  been  found  necessary  that  that  should  be  done  in  order  that  the 
State  might  be  looked  after  and  in  order  that  the  general  funds  might 
be  protected,  in  order  that  we  might  make  our  appropriations  for 
our  schools  and  our  roads  and  our  general  work  of  improvement  that 
is  going  on  there. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  You  can  not  apply  that  principle  to  lands 
taken  up  on  the  public  domain,  can  you  ? 

Mr.  SPRY.  Yes;  we  could  loan  money  to  a  man. 
Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  I  mean  the  taxing  proposition. 
Mr.  SPRY.  Xo;  that  is  Federal  land,  of  course,  but  we  do  tax  a 
man's  improvements  on  the  Federal  land,  although  we  can  not,  of 
course  touch  the  realty. 

In  this  way  many  thousands  of  acres  of  land  in  Utah  have  been 
put  under  cultivation  that  otherwise  would  not  have  been  under 
cultivation. 

Mi-.  EAKER.  Governor,  you  just  tax  the  improvements  as  personal 
property  ? 

Mr.  SPRY.  As  personal  property ;  yes,  sir.  They  take  the  improve- 
ments— cattle  and  whatever  else  he  may  have  succeeded  in  getting — 
and  we  loan  money  on  that,  so  that  the  man  can  make  still  more 
improvements  and  probably  put  under  cultivation  more  of  the  acre- 
age that  he  has  succeeded  in  obtaining  from  the  Government. 

Xow,  I  could  tell  you  a  long  story,  gentlemen,  but  I  know  the 
time  is  getting  short  If  there  are  any  questions  that  the  gentle- 
men would  like  to  ask,  I  would  be  very  glad  if  it  is  possible  to  an- 
swer them — any  reasonable  questions  which  might  be  put  with  rela- 
tion to  the  bill  itself.  I  want  to  have  it  understood  emphatically  that 
I  am  strong  for  the  bill,  because  I  believe  that  it  will  accomplish  a 
vast  amount  of  good  not  merely  for  the  soldier,  but  it  will  develop 
the  country,  but  it  will  develop'  a  still  more  loyal  attachment  on  the 
part  of  the  soldier  for  the  country,  for  someone  has  said — I  don't 
know  who  it  was,  and  I  don't  know  that  I  particularly  care,  but  it  is 


786  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

true — someone  has  said  that  the  owners  of  the  soil  become  the  rulers 
of  the  Nation.  And  because  of  the  fact  that  men  are  planted  upon 
the  soil  and  that  they  can  raise  their  families  and  they  understand 
the  relationship  of  the  soil  to  those  families,  that  men  love  their 
country,  and  if  every  American  owned  his  o\vn  home,  whether  it  be 
a  city  lot  or  a  40-acre  farm  or  a  640-acre  farm,  in  my  humble  judg- 
ment, he  would  be  a  very  much  better  citizen  and  more  loyal  to  his 
country.  I  am  a  firm  believer  in  the  owner  of  the  soil.  You  can 
rely  upon  him,  and  for  that  reason  it  will  be  money  well  invested. 
It  is  money  that  will  come  back  to  the  country.  I  am  not  a  believer 
in  the  idea  that  the  soldier  is  going  upon  the  land  to  reap  what  he 
can  the  first  two  or  three  years  and  abandon  the  farm  and  throw  it 
upon  the  country.  He  has  an  equity  in  it  before  he  can  get  on  it. 
He  is  supposed  to  put  up  a  certain  percentage  of  every  dollar  that  is 
loaned. 

I  am  like  Mr.  Hansen  and  others  that  have  come  before  the  com- 
mittee: I  would  increase  the  percentage  from  5  to  10  per  cent  for 
the  initial  payment,  because  it  ties  the  man  closer  to  the  farm.  It 
gives  you  a  better  hold  upon  him,  as  he  has  a  better  hold  upon  the 
farm,  and  the  man  that  has  any  considerable  equity  in  a  proposi- 
tion that  he  has  invested  in  is  not  likely  to  leave  it  and  abandon  it, 
but  he  is  going  in  to  make  a  success  of  it,  as  those  people  have  made  a 
success  of  the  lands  that  Mr.  Green  has  just  spoken  of. 

I  don't  think  that  the  Government  should  assume  the  role  of  the 
pure  philanthropist.  This  is  purely  a  business  proposition,  and  un- 
doubtedly in  the  hands  of  the  careful  men  who  will  control  and 
adopt  rules  and  regulations  governing  it.  There  is  no  question  in 
my  mind  but  what  the  rights  of  the  Government  will  be  amply 
protected  and  cared  for. 

I  will  say  this,  that  I  have  no  doubt  that  every  effort  will  be  made 
on  the  part  of  the  people  of  Utah,  through  its  legislature — they  have 
already  provided  for  the  issue  of  a  million  dollars'  worth  of  bonds 
to  be  associated  with  this,  whatever  apportionment  may  come  to 
Utah  from  this  bill;  and  I  have  no  doubt  but  what  the  legislature, 
when  it  convenes  again,  after  we  find  what  the  Government  is  will- 
ing to  do  for  my  State^I  have  no  doubt,  I  say,  but  what  they  will 
be  willing  to  make  a  still  further  appropriation  in  order  that  they 
might  at  least  equal  the  25  per  cent,  and  in  that  way  the  provisions 
of  the  bill,  I  think,  provide  that  the  State  shall  take  over  the 
management  and  control  of  the  project,  subject,  of  course,  to  the 
regulations  of  the  Interior  Department.  So  that  I  am  not  afraid  of 
anything  getting  «in  there  but  what  will  be  perfectly  right  and 
proper.  I  don't  mean  to  say  that  every  man  that  goes  on  to  every 
piece  of  land  will  make  a  success  of  it.  Every  lawyer  doesn't  make 
a  success  of  his  profession;  every  governor  doesn't  make  a  success 
of  his  job;  and  there  are  failures  all  down  the  line.  But  the  rule  is 
that  you  can  depend  upon  these  boj's,  and  they  will  make  good  if 
they  find  any  disposition  upon  the  part  of  the  Federal  Government 
to  extend  the  helping  hand  and  make  it  possible  for  them  to  grow 
up  with  the  country  and  become  a  part  and  parcel  of  the  Common- 
wealth where  they  reside. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  a  question  that  would  seem 
to  be  difficult,  but  I  gather  that  you  are  as  able  to  answer  it,  more  so 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  787 

than  anybody  that  has  been  here — at  least,  from  your  own  State. 
You  stated  that  about  73  per  cent  of  your  land  is  yet  public  domain? 

Mr.  SPRY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Now,  Governor 

Mr.  SPRY  (interposing).  What  I  mean  by  that,  Mr.  White,  is  that 
it  is  nonassessable.  It  belongs  either  to  the  Government  or  to  the 
State  through  the  State  lands.  There  is  very  little  State  land- 
grant  land  left. 

Mr.  WHITE.  It  is  not  utilized  at  this  time? 

Mr.  SPRY.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  YAILE.  It  hasn't  been  brought  under  private  ownership. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Yes ;  I  understand  that.  Would  you  like  to  say  about 
what  percentage  of  that  could  be  made  available  for  agriculture 
through  the  different  agencies  that  might  be  employed  ? 

Mr.  SPRY.  On  account  of  the  mountainous  districts  that  we  have 
there  not  all  of  it  could  be  utilized,  but  I  should  say  fully  one- 
half  of  it  if  the  water  was  available. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Well,  do  you  think  the  water  is  available? 

Mr.  SPRY.  Not  as  yet.  It  is  going  to  take  a  very  extensive  system 
of  reservoirs  not  only  in  Utah  but  all  through  the  western  country, 
and  this  thing  we  call  conservation  has  got  to  be  carried  out  to  the 
very  limit  in  order  that  those  western  arid  lands  may  be  brought 
under  irrigation. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Is  this  land  now  that  you  speak  of,  a  very  large  per- 
centage of  it,  now  available  for  pasturage? 

Mr.  SPRY.  Well,  it  is  all  available  for  pasturage. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Is  it  valuable  for  pasturage? 

Mr.  SPRY.  It  is  not  as  valuable,  perhaps,  as  the  lands  would  be 
in  a  wet  region  or  in  a  rainy  region,  but  it  makes  good  pasture, 
particularly  the  mountain  lands,  where  we  get  more  moisture  than 
we  do  upon  the  plains. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  just  want  to  ask  one  question  on  generalization.  I 
was  very  much  interested  in  the  statement  you  made  that  if  these 
boys  had  good  stuff  in  them  they  would  make  good ;  that  is,  the  fair 
proportion.  Now,  you  applied  the  common-sense  analysis  to  this 
thing  and  it  pleases  me.  I  will  ask  you  this  question :  In  your  opin- 
ion, would  a  larger  proportion  of  boys  who  have  been  raisecl  on  farms 
avail  themselves  of  the  opportunities  presented  by  this  bill  than  those 
in  cities? 

Mr.  SPRY.  I  rather  think  they  would,  Mr.  White. 

Mr.  WHITE.  That  is  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  anjr  further  questions  of  the  governor? 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  a  couple  of  questions,  if  I 
may. 

I  agree  with  what  you  stated  regarding  the  desirability,  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  States,  that  men  should  own  their  soil,  own  their 
homes.  Now.  I  will  a=k  yon  if  it  would  not  be  just  as  desirable  for  a 
man  to  own  his  home  in  a  city  or  town,  as  on  a  farm? 

Mr.  SPRY.  Yes :  I  am  speaking  now  of  the  owners  of  the  soil,  and,  I 
think,  I  stated  that  no  matter  whether  it  is  a  city  lot  or  a  40-acre  farm, 
in  the  sense  of  proprietorship  or  ownership,  I  am  in  favor  of  his 
owning  his  home.  I  am  opposed  to  tenantry  of  any  kind. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  agree  with  you  on  that.  Do  you  think.  Governor, 
that  it  would  be  better  to  devise  some  plan,  or  that  something  should 


788  HOMES  FOE   SOLDIEKS. 

be  devised,  perhaps,  in  addition  to  this  measure  to  take  care  of  those 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  soldiers  who  have  been  city-bred,  have  had 
no  farming  experience  whatever,  to  aid  them  to  own  a  home,  to  buy 
a  home  in  the  city  ? 

Mr.  SPRY.  Well,  of  course,  it  would  be  difficult,  very  difficult,  to 
handle  this  entire  situation  in  one  act — very  difficult.  In  the  first 
place,  it  would  take  a  tremendous  amount  of  money.  But  I  do  think 
that  as  the  provisions  of  this  bill  are  demonstrated  and  men  are  con- 
verted to  the  idea  that  it  can  be  made  a  success,  that  other  provisions 
can  be  made  in  the  future  to  take  care  of  those  who  desire  to  still 
avail  themselves  of  the  beneficient  legislation  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment, and  in  the  meantime  those  who  desire  a  small  home  in  the  city 
can  doubtless  go  to  the  Federal  banks  and  secure  a  loan  at  a  low  rate 
of  interest,  so  that  they  may  obtain  what  they  want  along  that  line. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  And  eventually  you  believe  that  the  Government 
should  enact  some  legislation  that  would  offer  aid  to  the  soldier  in  the 
city? 

Mr.  SPRY.  I  think  the  Government  should  enact  some  legislation  as 
shall  give  to  all  of  them  the  things  they  most  desire. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Now,  Governor,  you  have  heard  the  testimony  here 
and  are  probably  familiar  with  it,  about  this  measure — the  appro- 
priation authorized  of  $500.000,000  necessarily  would  not  take  care 
of  any  more  than  perhaps  100,000  soldiers. 

Mr.  SPRY.  Oh;  probably  200,000.  It  depends  altogether  as  to  what 
is  decided  as  the  limit  of  aid  to  be  extended. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Well,  if  a  greater  persentage  than  that  desired  to 
avail  themselves  of  the  opportunities  offered  by  this  measure,  then  it 
would  be  necessary  to  ask  for  an  additional  appropriation  ? 

Mr.  SPRY.  I  think  so. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  think  that  in  addition  to  the  appropriation 
authorized  here  that  that  is  what  would  happen  ? 

Mr.  SPRY.  I  believe  myself  that  the  provisions  of  this  bill  will  be- 
come so  favorable  in  its  appliccation  to  the  soldier  boy  that  there  will 
be  a  demand  for  still  further  legislation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  mean  that  it  will  be  so  successful  ? 

Mr.  SPRY.  So  successful,  I  should  say. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  That  there  will  be  a  demand  for  still  further  appro- 
priations? 

Mr.  SPRY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  VAILE.  And  don't  you  think,  Governor,  that  that  would  be 
affected  very  largely  by  State  appropriations  in  aid  of  this  general 

Mr.  SPRY.  I  have  no  doubt  but  what  the  States  would  be  willing 
to  lend  in  so  far  as  they  are  able  the  helping  hand,  and  to  cooperate 
with  the  Federal  Government.  I  have  always  contended  for  that 
idea.  Take,  for  instance,  the  ownership  on  the  part  of  the  State  of 
the  water,  and  the  ownership  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  Government 
of  the  public  lands:  there  ought  to  be  that  cooperation  always.  BO 
that  the  State  and  the  Federal  Government  dovetail  together  and  put 
forth  their  efforts  altogether  in  favor  of  the  men  that  want  to  go 
upon  the  land.  .  . 

Mr.  RAKER.  After  an  experience  of  40  years,  Governor,  in  Utah, 
and  observing  young  men  going  onto  farms  and  ranching,  as  it  is 
conducted  in  your  State,  will  you  state  to  the  committee  whether  or 


HOMES  FOB  SOLDIERS.  789 

not  you  have  observed  that  me  -who  have  been  in  the  blacksmith 
business,  who  have  been  storekeepers,  clerks,  telegraph  operators, 
and  in  all  other  trades  and  professions,  have  gone  onto  farms  and 
have  made  good,  irrespective  of  where  they  were  raised  or  what  has 
been  their  occupation  before  they  went  onto  the  farm? 

Mr.  SPRY.  Yes ;  that  has  been  my  observation,  and  it  has  been  par- 
ticularly marked  because  of  this  fact:  In  the  proselyting  system  of 
the  Mormon  Church,  where  they  send  their  men  out  in  "different 
countries  and  many  men  of  many  kinds  and  occupations  become  con- 
verts to  their  doctrine,  they  have  come  out  to  Utah  :md  we  have  had 
the  watchmaker  from  Switzerland,  we  have  had  the  shoemaker  and 
the  carpenter  and  the  cabinetmaker  and  men  representing  every  one 
of  the  known  trades,  and  in  very  many  instances — and  I  think  I  am 
safe  in  saying  in  the  majority  of  instances— those  who  came  in  the 
early  days,  not  finding  anything  to  do  at  their  chosen  profession,  have 
secured  for  themselves  a  small  tract  of  land  and  they  have  gone  on 
that  land  and  have  learned  by  experience  the  S3rstem  of  farming,  and 
have  made  a  success  of  it. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  It  depends  on  the  fellow,  mostly,  doesn't  it? 

Mr.  SPRY.  It  depends  altogether  on  the  fellow.  Men  are  just  alike, 
whether  they  are  in  Oklahoma,  Utah,  California,  or  somewhere  else. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  if  he  has  the  ginger  in  him  he  makes  good,  and 
the  weak-kneed,  soft-nosed  fellow  fails. 

Mr.  SPRY.  He  fails,  and  he  ought  to  fail. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  sometimes  the  soft-nosed  fellow  may  look  fairly 
good  and  might  be  selected  to  be  a  good  farmer  and  has  been  raised 
on  a  farm,  whereas,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  other  man  might  not  have 
a  good  appearance,  but  you  give  him  a  chance  and  he  will  beat  the 
other  fellow. 

Mr.  SPRY.  Yes.  sir ;  it  is  largely  a  question  of  opportunity. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Well,  Governor,  you  don't  think  that  because  this 
bill  may  not  accomplish  everything  that  everybody  wants  for  all  the 
soldiers,  and  because  it  doesn't  cover  the  whole  field  of  legislation 
that  Congress  will  probably  ultimately  cover  for  the  soldiers,  that  is 
no  reason  why  this  start  should  not  be  made  in  this  direction  ? 

Mr.  SPRY.  You  never  did  enact  a  bill  in  Congress  that  accomplished 
everything  that  it  was  desired  to  do.  It  takes  a  series  of  legislative 
acts.  It  is  a  matter  of  compromise  after  all. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  And  there  will  probably  be  a  great  many  bills  passed 
by  Congress  for  the  relief  of  the  soldiers. 

Mr.  SPRY.  No  doubt  about  it.  This  is  the  foundation  stone  that 
is  being  laid  to-day  for  the  relief  and  for  the  benefit  and  for  the 
help  of  the  soldier  who  desires  to  be  helped;  not  by  way  of  any 
charity  or  anything  of  that  kind,  because  I  take  it  that  there  are  few 
soldiers  who  would  go  on  the  lands  under  those  circumstances,  but 
the  boys  want  a  temporary  aid  extended  to  them.  This  lays  the 
foundation  and  future  legislation  can  build  upon  that  foundation. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Even  though  95  per  cent  of  the  soldiers  may  not  de- 
sire or  have  any  inclination  to  avail  themselves  of  this  provision, 
that  is  no  reason  why  we  should  not  give  the  other  5  per  cent,  if  they 
want  it.  this  opportunity. 

Mr.  SPRY.  Not  at  all/ 

The  CHAIRMAX.  Do  you  know,  Governor,  that  that  was  one  of  the 
objections  to  the  passage  of  the  original  homestead  act,  that  you  are 


790  HOMES   FOR   SOLDIERS. 

only  helping  the  man  who  wanted  a  farm  and  that  you  are  not 
helping  the  mechanic  in  the  city,  who  desired  to  stay  there,  and, 
therefore,  to  equalize  things,  you  should  give  the  mechanic  in  the 
city  $160,  or  the  equivalent  in  value  of  160  acres  of  land  that  you  are 
going  to  give  to  somebody  ? 

Mr.  SPRY.  But  who  is  there  to-day  but  what  is  in  favor  of  the 
homestead  act? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  right,  yet  it  was  not  equal  to  everybody 
in  the  country,  and  it  was  giving  away  the  assets  of  the  General 
Government. 

Mr.  SPRY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  And  who  is  there  in  the  country  to-day  who  doesn't 
realize  that  when  you  establish  those  homesteads  you  also  made 
jobs;  you  made  occupations  and  made  homes  for  men  all  over  the 
United  States,  in  villages,  towns,  and  cities? 

Mr.  SPRY.  For  every  additional  farm  that  is  created  in  the  West 
or  any  other  place  it  puts  that  much  more  money  into  circulation, 
and  I  think  it  was  James  J.  Hill  who  made  the  statement  that  for 
every  family  located  upon  any  one  of  his  lines  of  railroads  they  were 
worth  fully  $3,000  each  to  him  as  a  railroad  man. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  want  to  say  just  a  little  more.  Who  is  there 
to-day  who  doesn't  realize  that  when  we  have  provided  for  a  limited 
number  of  soldiers  that  we  have  in  an  indirect  way  benefited  the 
whole  number  of  soldiers  by  allowing  them  to  have  positions  and 
by  creating  employment  for  them  in  the  way  of  building  houses, 
making  shoes,  clothing,  supplying  groceries  and  hardware  and  every- 
thing of  that  kind,  because  this  is  interlocked  all  the  way  through? 
You  can't  benefit  100,000  of  them  without  benefiting  all 'of  them. 

Mr.  SPRY.  You  create  an  additional  demand  for  everv  commodity 
of  life.  The  farmer  requires  more  implements.  That  gives  employ- 
ment to  the  men  of  Ohio  and  Illinois  and  wherever  you  have  got  an 
implement  factory  established. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  And  the  tendency  is  to  relieve  congestion  in  the  city 
and  accelerate,  if  we  can,  the  movement  to  the  farm. 

Mr.  SPRY.  And  that  is  the  one  great  big  problem  of  to-day. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  That  is  the  great  big  problem  of  this  country. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Governor,  you  look  on  this  proposition  as  a  kind  of 
dual  proposition,  dp  you  not? 

Mr.  SPRY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  One  economic  and  one  for  the  relief  of  the  soldier? 

Mr.  SPRY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  As  to  the  economic  proposition  and  the  advantages 
connected  with  it,  you  have  spoken  quite  fully,  and  other  witnesses 
have,  but  as  to  the  relief  that  it  accords  to  the  soldier,  Governor,  it 
has  been  charged  around  this  table  here  by  preceding  witnesses  that 
it  did  not  give  any  relief  to  the  soldier ;  that  it  was  a  scheme  to  get 
him  out  onto  some  wild  desert  or  some  marsh  or  boghole  in  Florida, 
and  that  it  didn't  amount  to  anything  to  the  soldier.  I  want  to  ask 
you  two  or  three  questions,  if  I  may,  regarding  that. 

There  isn't  a  place  in  the  country  where  a  soldier  can  get  a  loan 
of  money  sufficient  to  buy  a  farm  at  4  per  cent  for  40  years,  is  there  ? 

Mr.  SPRY.  No,  sir ;  not  to  my  knowledge, 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  791 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  isn't  this  the  first  time  that  that  has  ever  been 
offered  to  anybody? 

Mr.  SPRY.  So  far  as  I  know ;  yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  isn't  it  the  first  time  that  there  has  been  offered 
to  a  man  a  living  wage,  and  to  have  living  wages  while  he  has  the 
opportunity  to  go  out  and  help  improve  the  farm  that  he  later 
expects  to  buy  on  the  terms  I  have  just  stated? 

Mr.  SPRY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Xow.  what  other  advantages  do  you  have  in  mind  that 
it  really  affords  the  soldier  who  desires  to  avail  himself  of  one  of  these 
homes  ? 

Mr.  SPRY.  Well,  I  think  those  three  things  will  largely  cover  it. 
It  enables  the  man  to  obtain  employment  while  the  project  is  being 
built.  If  he  has  a  family,  he  can  support  his  family  by  the  wage 
that  the  Government  is  paying  him  for  construction  work.  It  en- 
ables him  to  become  conversant  with  the  project  upon  which  he  is 
working;  it  enables  him  to  understand  the  nature  of  any  particular 
tract  of  land  that  is  upon  the  project;  it  will  give  him  a  preference 
in  his  selection. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  he  gets  good,  living  wages? 

Mr.  SPRY.  All  the  time. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  For  creating  and  building  the  home  that  he  expects 
to  acquire,  and  he  gets  a  living  wage  while  he  is  acquiring  the  expe- 
rience necessary  to  make  his  home  a  success. 

Mr.  SPRY.  Exactly. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Now,  supposing  a  penniless  soldier  gets  out  of  the 
Army  to-day,  absolutely  without  a  penny — as  most  of  them  will  get 
out — this  does  afford  that  man  a  chance,  if  he  has  the  right  stuff  in 
him,  to  get  immediate  employment,  doesn't  it,  if  this  bill  is  enacted? 

Mr.  SPRY.  Mr.  Ferris,  it  is  like  manna  from  heaven  to  that  man. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  if  he  has  the  bulldog  tenacity  that  you  and  I  had 
when  we  took  up  our  homesteads  out  there — and  any  other  fellow 
that  is  holding  onto  one — couldn't  he  stay  there  and  couldn't  he  work 
out  a  home  for  himself? 

Mr.  SPRY.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Well,  now,  let  me  pass  from  that.  Even  in  Utah, 
which  we  will  say  is  a  sparsely  settled  State,  there  will  be  instances 
where  the  community  plan  would  not  take  care  of  all  the  necessities 
there,  would  it  ? 

Mr.  SPRY.  I  think  so :  yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Well,  what  harm  would  there  be  in  attaching  to  this 
bill  an  alternative  proposition  which  would  provide,  in  effect,  that 
in  States  and  in  localities  where  the  community  proposition  or 
colonization  soldier  colony  plan  is  not  feasible — what  harm  would 
there  be  to  insert  in  this  bill  an  alternative  proposition  which  would 
enable  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  work  out  the  segregated 
isolated-tract  plan  ? 

Mr.  SPRY.  I  see  no  reason  whatever  why  that  could  not  be  done,  for 
this  reason:  There  is  a  project  to-day  which  has  for  its  purpose  tho 
irrigation  of  certain  lands  lying  in  the  vicinity  of  Ogden  and  Salt 
Lake  City,  where  perhaps  two-thirds  of  the  population  of  the  State 
resides,  so  that  within  a  radius  of  50  miles  from  Salt  Lake  City  you 
can  put  under  cultivation  more  land  than  is  already  being  culti- 


792  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

vated.  Mr.  Hays  is  acquainted  with  the  project.  In  the  county 
where  Ogden  is  located  I  presume  20,000  acres  could  be  obtained.  In 
the  county  between  the  two  cities,  the  county  of  Davis,  in  a  county 
containing  the  choicest  land  that  can  be  found  anywhere  in  the 
world — and  I  don't  bar  any — the  report  came  to  me  from  a  banker 
the  other  day  just  before  I  left  where  a  man,  through  intensively  cul- 
tivating 2  acres  of  land  in  garden  truck  and  small  fruits,  from  those 
2  acres  of  land  gathered  from  $3,500  to  $4,000  a  year.  The  banker 
said:  ",I  know  he  is  doing  it,  because  I  handle  his  money."  Now,  I 
don't  mean  to  say  that  every  acre  is  going  to  produce  in  quantity 
like  that,  but  it  "is  an  evidence  of  what  can  be  done.  Now,  within 
5  miles  of  that  man's  land — yes,  less  than  5  miles — there  is  land 
waiting  to-day  simply  for  the  water  that  can  be  put  under  cultiva- 
tion, and  these  boys  can  go  there,  and  I  take  it  that  they  would 
rather  go  to  the  centers  of  civilization  of  the  various  States.  It  is 
right  that  they  should  go  there.  I  want  to  say  incidentally  you  are 
not  going  to  "put  your  soldier  boy  out  on  a  desert.  He  won't  go. 
I  don't  think  he  should  be  asked  to  go.  Give  him  a  location  where 
he  can  enjoy  some  of  the  benefits  of  modern  civilization,  and  there 
isn't  a  State  in  the  Union  but  what  can  furnish  him  just  such  propo- 
sitions if  he  desires  to  avail  himself  of  them. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  And  why  could  we  not,  Governor,  with  equal  pro- 
priety, save  all  the  good  features  of  this  Lane  bill  and  the  Mondell 
bill  that  we  have  here  and  use  that  wherever  it  is  applicable,  and  why 
couldn't  we  meet  the  worries  and  the  anxieties  of  some  of  these  wit- 
nesses here,  and  also  some  members  of  the  committee  and  some  Mem- 
bers of  the  House  who  are  opposing  this  bill,  by  adding  to  it  an 
alternative  proposition  so  that  we  could  take  care  of  some  of  the 
other  fellows  that  don't  want  to  go  onto  these  farms  ? 

Mr.  SPRY.  I  think  you  have  a  perfect  right,  and  I  think  it  is  the 
proper  thing  to  do  to  adjust  the  bill  to  the  needs  of  the  men. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  For  example,  here  come  the  men  from  Ohio  and  Illi- 
nois and  Indiana  and  Iowa,  and  they  have  fears  that  their  land  is 
so  high-priced,  the  initial  cost  so  high,  plus  these  overhead  charges, 
that  may  be  necessary  to  break  the  soldier  in  and  get  him  established 
on  the  land,  that  they  think  it  will  make  the  land  so  high  that  it 
will  not  be  attractive  to  the  soldier.  In  other  words,  he  will  say, 
"  Well,  I  can  buy  a  farm — I  can  buy  my  father's  farm  for  less  than 
the  Government  is  offering  me  this."  So  the  result  is  he  don't  have 
any  relief  at  all.  Now,  isn't  it  the  duty  of  the  committee  to  give 
some  attention  to  that? 

Mr.  SPRY.  Some  attention  ought  to  be  paid  to  that ;  yes. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  Otherwise  we  will  be  met  in  the  House  and  elsewhere 
with  the  statement  that  we  are  passing  something  for  the  benefit  of 
a  few  Western  States,  something  for  the  benefit  of  a  few  boggy, 
marsh  States  in  the  South,  and  that  the  great  bulk  of  the  population 
of  the  United  States  will  not  get  any  relief  from  it.  That  is  the 
fear  of  a  lot  of  good  Members  of  Congress  and  some  members  of 
this  committee  and  a  lot  of  witnesses  here,  and  I  was  quite  anxious  to 
get  your  opinion  on  that,  because  I  know  you  have  been  through  the 
flint  mill  out  in  the  western  country,  and  your  opinion  is  valuable. 

Mr.  SPRY.  Anything  that  can  be  done  to  adjust  the  situation  and 
meet  the  opposition  to  the  bill  I  think  ought  to  be  done.  At  the  same 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  793 

time  I  don't  think  that  you  can  ask  the  soldier  boy  to  go  onto  any 
land  costing  $100,  $200,  $300,  or  $450  an  acre.  It  can  not  be  done. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  He  can  not  pay  it  out. 

Mr.  SPRY.  No  man  can  undertake  to  make  a  living  on  a  proposi- 
tion of  that  kind.  So  that  where  that  can  not  be  done  in  some  of 
these  States,  I  suppose  we  will  have  to  oiler  them  opportunities  in 
the  South  and  in  the  West  and  in  the  Northwest. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  That  is  true,  Governor,  but  we  have  got  to  make  the 
hill  not  so  steep  that  it  will  scare  the  soldier  away. 

Mr.  SPRY.  No ;  don't  make  the  hill  too  steep. 

Mr.  FERRIS.  It  has  got  to  be  made  so  that  the  soldier  can  climb  it. 

Mr.  SPRY.  This  bill  is  altogether  in  the  interest  of  the  soldier,  and 
his  preferences  must  of  necessity  be  taken  into  consideration. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to 
the  fact  that  it  is  12  o'clock,  and  the  water-power  bill  comes  up  this 
morning,  a  very  important  measure. 

Mr.  MAYS.  I  want  to  ask  the  Governor  just  one  question.  You 
stated  awhile  ago  that  you  couldn't  get  the  soldier  to  go  onto  a 
desert.  Without  explanation,  that  in  the  record  might  give  a  bad 
impression.  It  might  not  convey  the  thought  that  you  had  in  mind. 
What  do  you  mean  by  that  ? 

Mr.  SPRY.  My  idea  was  this — and  I  am  very  glad  that  you  called 
jny  attention  to  that — what  I  meant  by  the  desert  was  upon  these 
far-away  projects,  away  from  railroads,  away  from  close  communica- 
tion with  the  centers  of  population ;  and  yet,  if  any  one  of  the  young 
men  care  to  do  that,  and  as  you  say,  go  out  and  grow  up  with  the 
country,  undoubtedly  railroads  will  go  wherever  the  business  justifies 
them  going,  as  they  did  in  southern  Idaho.  The  railroads  went  to 
where  the  people  were  producing  these  immense  crops  that  Mr.  Green 
talks  about. 

Mr.  MATS.  They  were  deserts  at  the  time. 

Mr.  SPRY.  But  when  you  put  water  on  them,  you  don't  have  to  wait 
long  for  production. 

Mr.  MAYS.  Your  idea  was,  if  I  understood  you,  that  you  could  not 
get  a  man  to  go  way  out  by  himself  and  isolate  himself  upon  a  desert 
where  there  was  no  plan  to  improve  it? 

Mr.  SPRY.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  MAYS.  And  bring  it  into  cultivation  ? 

Mr.  SPRY.  You  are  right  on  that. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  May  I  ask  the  governor  a  question?  Did  you  say 
something  about  the  State  of  Utah  aiding  people  to  settle  on  the 
public  lands,  the  State  lands  of  Utah? 

Mr.  SPRY., Yes:  the  State  land  board,  through  the  funds  that  it 
has  on  hand  for  the  various  State  institutions,  obtained  through  the 
land  grants  that  came  to  the  State.  That  money  is  loaned  to  men  for 
improvements,  and  the  legislature  has  provided  that  the  farmer  shall 
have  the  preference  in  all  of  those  loans. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Yes;  but  do  they  loan  money  to  make  the  initial 
investment  ? 

Mr.  SPRY.  Sometimes,  yes ;  if  they  want  more  land,  yes. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  At  what  rate  of  interest? 

Mr.  SPRY.  Six  per  cent. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  For  how  many  years  ? 


794  HOMES   FOE  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  SPRY.  Well,  covering  a  period  of  years,  according  to  any  agree- 
ment that  might  be  made,  but  not  to  exceed  10.  They  loan  about  40 
per  cent,  not  to  exceed  50  per  cent,  of  the  valuation  of  the  thing  that 
they  are  loaning  on. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Mr.  Ferris  said  something — called  your  attention  to 
the  fact  that  this  bill  provided  employment  for  the  soldiers. 

Mr.  SPRY.  That  is  on  the  construction  of  the  various  projects. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Yes. 

Mr.  SPRY.  It  will  provide  that  employment,  the  building  of  roads, 
reservoirs,  etc. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Yes;  but  did  you  hear  the  statement  made  by  Mr. 
Davis,  of  the  Reclamation  Service,  regarding  that  part  of  the  bill  ? 

Mr.  SPRY.  No,  sir ;  I  have  not  discussed  it  with  Mr.  Davis  at  all. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  He  stated  before  this  committee  that  the  condition 
of  unemployment  that  it  was  expected  would  exist  on  the  return 
of  the  soldiers  does  not  exist  in  the  way  they  thought  it  would  ex- 
ist and  that  the  feature  of  the  bill  does  not  obtain  as  it  was  expected 
it  would. 

Mr.  SPRY.  Well,  that  may  be.  I  don't  know  about  that.  That  is  a 
matter,  of  course,  for  the  exigency  of  the  occasion. 

Mr.  Chairman,  early  in  the  hearings  Mr.  T.  C.  Atkeson,  legisla- 
tive representative  of  the  National  Grange,  appeared  before  the 
committee  in  opposition  of  the  pending  bill.  He  stated  that  the 
National  Grange,  with  a  membership  of  nearly  1,000,000  extending 
from  Maine  to  Oregon,  and  was  especially  strong  in  the  West,  was 
opposed  to  the  pending  legislation  on  the' ground  that  there  was  an 
abundance  of  untenanted  farms  near  market  centers  to  supply  all  the 
soldiers  who  may  wish  farm  land.  I  wish  to  insert  in  the  record  at 
this  point  an  editorial  from  the  Evening  Capital  News,  of  Boise, 
Idaho,  under  date  of  June  23,  containing  a  telegram  addressed  to 
Mr.  Atkeson  by  W.  W.  Deal,  master  of  the  Idaho  State  Grange,  to 
the  effect  that  Mr.  Atkeson  did  not  represent  the  sentiment  of  Idaho 
and  requesting  him  to  so  state  to  the  committee.  Up  to  the  present 
time  he  has  not  done  so,  so  far  as  I  am  advised.  The  editorial  is  as 
follows : 

WHERE   IDAHO   STANDS. 

W.  W.  Deal,  master  of  the  State  Grange,  leaves  no  room  for  doubt  as  to 
where  Idaho  stands  on  the  Mondell  bill.  Every  farmer  in  this  State  will  in- 
dorse the  sentiment  expressed  by  him  in  his  telegram  to  T.  C.  Atkeson,  National 
Grange  legislative  representative  at  Washington,  in  which  he  said : 

"  Reports  current  that  you  oppose  soldiers'  land  bill.  If  so,  you  do  not 
represent  the  sentiment  of  Idaho.  Please  represent  us  before  congressional 
committee  in  behalf  of  Mondell  bill." 

The  Capital  News  pointed  out  in  a  recent  issue  that  Mr.  Atkeson  spoke 
without  authority  from  Idaho  farmers  when  he  informed  the  public  lands 
committee  farmers  generally  were  against  the  soldier  land  act,  for  they,  above 
all  others,  realize  what  irrigation  means  to  this  State.  It  extends  to  Mr.  Deal 
its  hearty  indorsement  of  his  instructions  to  Mr.  Atkeson. 

I  also  desire  to  insert  in  the  record  the  following  resolutions  by 
the  John  Regan  Post  of  World  War  Veterans,  Boise,  Idaho : 

RESOLUTIONS. 

Whereas  a  bill  was  introduced  in  the  Sixty-lift li  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  commonly  known  as  the  soldiers'  settlement  act,  or  the  Lane  land  hill. 
providing  for  the  reclamation  of  a  vast  acreage  of  arid,  cut-over,  and  s\vamp 


.   HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  795 

lands  in  the  United  States,  and  for  the  furnishing  of  homes  and  employment 
for  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  who  served  in  the  Great  War ;  and 

Whereas  we  believe  that  the  greatest  question  confronting  the  United  States 
during  the  reconstruction  period  after  the  war  is  the  adequate  development  of 
its  vast  resources  and  the  furnishing  of  employment  for  the  many  citizens 
whose  participation  in  the  war  or  in  war  industries  threw  them  out  of  their 
former  occupations  and  employment ;  and 

Whereas  the  said  soldiers'  settlement  act  failed  to  pass  at  the  last  session  of 
the  Sixty-fifth  Congress :  Now,  therefore,  be  it 

Resolved  bit  the  John  Regnn  Post  of  the  World  War  Veterans  as  follows: 
That  we  deeply  appreciate  the  efforts  of  the  Hon.  Franklin  K.  Lane,  Secretary 
of  the  Interior,  and  of  our  delegation  in  Congress  to  secure  the  passage  of  such 
bill ;  that  we  are  heartily  in  favor  of  the  enactment  of  such  legislation  as  will 
assist  returning  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  in  the  securing  of  rural  homes 
and  suitable  employment  and  in  reclaiming  the  5.000,000  acres  of  arid,  swamp, 
and  cut-over  lands  in  the  State  of  Idaho,  which  can  be  reclaimed  at  a  reason- 
able cost;  and  that  we  strongly  urge  our  Senators  and  Representatives  at  the 
next  session  of  Congress  of  the  United  States  to  devote  their  utmost  en- 
deavors to  securing  the  introduction  and  passage  of  the  said  soldiers'  settlement 
bill  or  similar  legislation ;  and  be  it  further 

Resolretl,  That  copies  of  this  resolution  be  sent  to  the  Hon.  Franklin  K.  Lane, 
Hon.  William  E.  Borah,  the  Hon.  John  F.  Nugent,  the  Hon.  Addison  T.  Smith, 
and  the  Hon.  Burton  L.  French. 

I  also  submit  the  following  resolutions  from  the  Boise  Trades 
and  Labor  Council,  Boise,  Idaho : 

SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT  MEMORIAL. 

Whereas  there  exists,  within  the  State  of  Idaho,  about  12,000,000  acres  of 
unappropriated  and  unreserved  public  lands,  thousands  and  thousands  of 
acres  of  which  need  but  to  be  reclaimed  by  clearing  or  by  the  application  of 
water  in  order  to  make  them  productive  of  abundant  crops  of  foodstuffs  and 
fit  for  happy  homes;  and 

Whereas  there  is  and  always  will  be  urgent  need  for  development  of  all  re- 
clamable  land  in  the  United  States,  inasmuch  as  America  is  now  and  for 
many  years  to  come,  will  be  called  upon  to  supply  much  of  the  food  for 
devastated  European  countries;  and 

Whereas  it  is  now  the  one  great  duty  and  the  one  unbounded  privilege  of 
America  to  reward  the  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  who  have  done  service 
in  our  Army  and  Navy,  and  who  by  that  service  have  shown  that  they  are 
willing  to  lay  their  all  upon  the  altar  of  humanity's  need ;  and 
Whereas  adequate  reward  comes  not  through  presentation  of  medals  and  in- 
scriptions of  names  upon  tablets  of  stone,  but  through  opportunities  for  these 
vigorous  young  men  to  procure  land  and  construct  homes  so  the  larger  num- 
ber of  them  who  so  desire  may  heed  the  call  of  nature  and  follow  the  con- 
structive and  productive  pursuits  of  outdoor  life ;  and 

Whereas  the  fifteenth  session  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Idaho  ten- 
tatively appropriated  $100,000  for  cooperation  with  the  Federal  Government 
in  soldier  settlement  work,  which  appropriation  will  be  unavailable  unless  a 
Federal  appropriation  for  like  purposes  is  made :  Now,  therefore,  be  it 
Resolved,   By   the  Boise  Trades  and  Labor  Council,   in  regular  session  as- 
sembled this  4th  day  of  June,  1919,  that  we  hereby  urge  upon  the  present  ses- 
sion of  the  United  States  Congress  immediate  passage  of  such  efficient  legis- 
lation as  will  set  in  motion  Federal  Government   machine/y  for  reclamation 
of  unappropriated  and  unreserved  public  lands  in  the  United  States;  that  pro- 
visions be  included  for  liberal  appropriations  to  the  various  States  that  have 
made  tentative  laws  pending  the  cooperation  of  the  Federal  Government  for 
soldier  settlement  work,  and  that  provisions  also  be  included  in  congressional 
legislation  that  will  afford  to  United  States  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  as 
nearly  free  access  to  public  lands  for  the  purposes  of  reclamation  and  home 
building  thereon  as  is  possible  to  give,  or,  at  least,  that  payments  for  same 
be  so  arranged  as  to  make  the  procurement  of  sufficient  land  to  assure  liveli- 
hood compatible  with  American  standards  of  living  an  immediate  and  desirable 
possibility  for  each  veteran  of  the  Great  War,  and,  further, 

Be  it  known  that  we  condemn  in  no  uncertain  terms  the  man  or  set  of  men 
who  would,  for  partisan  reasons,  delay  soldier  settlement  legislation  one 


796  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

moment  longer  than  is  necessary  in  order  to  attain  the  highest  ideals  in  the 
prosecution  of  this  paramount  public  duty. 

BOISE  TRADES  AND  LABOR  COUNCIL, 
By  LAWRENCE  O.  NICHOLS,  President. 
Attest : 

[SEAL.]  J.  K.  RADLEY,  Secretary. 

Adopted  by  unanimous  vote  June  4,  1919. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Mr.  Chairman,  haven't  we  reached  the  end  of  that 
six  hours  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  have  reached  the  end  of  our  hearings. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  move  that  they  close. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  suppose  that  we  had  better  meet  again  on  our 
regular  meeting  day  next  Tuesday. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  was  anxious  to  have  Mr.  Davis,  of 
the  Reclamation  Service,  answer  a  few  questions  for  information.  If 
there  is  another  gentleman  here  representing  the  Eeclamation  Service^ 
I  would  be  glad  to  ask  him. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Davis  is  not  here.  We  can  get  him  up  any 
time  for  our  purpose. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  All  right,  if  that  is  suitable. 

STATEMENT  OF  ME.  H.  T.  CORY,  CONSULTING  ENGINEER,  UNITED 
STATES  RECLAMATION  SERVICE. 

Mr.  CORY.  If  you  will  ask  the  questions,  I  will  tell  you  frankly 
whether  or  not  I  can  answer  them. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  What  I  wanted  to  find  out,  Mr.  Cory,  was  if  you  can 
tell  me  what  the  average  wage  will  be,  the  average  wage — it  has  been 
understood  here  that  the  man  would  have  an  average  wage  on  these 
projects  of  probably  $4  a  day. 

Mr.  CORY.  Absolutely  nothing  has  been  decided  about  that. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Can  you  say  how  much  he  wrould  likely  be  paid? 

Mr.  CORY.  He  would  be  paid  the  going  wages. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Well,  now,  I  notice  that — 

Mr.  CORY  (interposing).  It  will  undoubtedly  have  to  be  an  eight- 
hour  day.  That  is  national  legislation.  The  wages  to  be  paid  will 
vary  according  to  what  the  man  does,  whether  he  is  a  machinist,  a 
garage  man,  or  something  else.  You  doubtless  mean  general  common 
labor. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  wanted  to  know  about  common  labor,  the  common 
wage.  I  understood  Mr.  Davis  to  say  that  they  would  probablv  earn 
$1,200  a  year. 

Mr.  CORY.  I  think  the  average  wage  would  be  about  $4  a  day  for 
common  labor,  because  they  are  paying  50  cents  an  hour  for  section 
labor  on  at  least  a  few  of  the  railroads  to-day.  Fifty  cents  an  hour 
is  the  present  current  wage  in  a  good  many  agricultural  communities 
for  agricultural  labor,  and  I  think  we  would  not  pay  less. 

Mr.  VAILE.  It  will  be  the  current  wage  in  the  community. 

Mr.  CORY.  Yes ;  but  it  has  no  absolutely  fixed  figure.  It  doubtless 
will  not  be  the  same  during  all  the  next  five  years.  It  is  just  a  plain 
proposition  of  the  current  wage  in  each  locality,  just  as  the  railroads 
pay  current  wages. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  That  will  be  the  current  wage  in  the  particular  com- 
munity, the  particular  locality  where  the  project  is  located? 

Mr.  CORY.  Exactly. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  797 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Now,  I  understood  Mr.  Davis  to  say  that  the  average 
wage  paid — the  average  wage  that  they  expected  to  pay  employees 
on  these  projects  was  $4  a  day. 

Mr.  CORY.  I  think  you  misunderstood  him. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  may  have.  I  thought  that  was  what  he  testified.  I 
will  look  it  up. 

Mr.  CORY.  No  one  can  say  what  the  average  wage  on  an  entire 
project  would  be.  It  would  depend  on  the  relative  amounts  of  various 
characters  of  work. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  What  the  wage  is  now  would  be  no  indication  of  what 
it  will  be  a  year  from  now  or  two  years  from  now. 

Mr.  CORY.  It  may  not.  At  the  present  time,  with  the  present  wage 
scale  throughout  the  whole  country,  I  should  say  that  about  $4  per  day 
for  common  labor  is  about  right,  but  there  is  nothing  in  the  law  that 
fixes  it. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  I  think  I  am  responsible  for  that  idea  that  the  wage 
will  be  $-4  a  day,  Mr.  Nichols.  I  was  doing  some  figuring  one  day 
when  Mr.  Mondell  was  here,  and  I  used  $4  a  day  as  the  basis  for  my 
figuring,  that  was  all,  and  since  that  time  I  have  noticed  that  the 
wage  of  $4  a  day  has  been  discussed  pretty  generally.  I  thought  it 
was  a  reasonable  wage,  an  average  wage. 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  is  impossible  for  this  committee  to  determine  the 
question  of  wages  on  a  project. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No ;  we  are  not  trying  to  determine  that. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  I  am  just  asking  for  information. 

Mr.  CORY.  Mr.  Nichols  wanted  to  know  if  we  had  any  prede- 
termined ideas  on  that,  and  we  have  not. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  You  contemplate,  of  course,  paying  the  pre- 
vailing wage  in  the  locality  where  the  work  is  done  ? 

Mr.  CORY.  The  prevailing  wage,  nothing  more  and  nothing  less. 

Mr.  BEN  HAM.  Would  you  make  a  distinction  in  different  parts  of 
the  country  ?  Would  you  pay  the  soldier  in  one  part  of  the  country 
45  cents  an  hour  and  in  another  part  less  or  more  ? 

Mr.  CORY.  Undoubtedly. 

Mr.  BEXHAM.  Would  the  soldier  be  satisfied  with  that  arrange- 
ment? 

Mr.  CORY.  Undoubtedly  he  will.  For  instance,  in  certain  States  a 
carpenter  gets  $7  a  day,  and  in  another  State  he  gets  $5.  Those  car- 
penters are  satisfied  because  of  the  differing  local  costs  of  living. 
For  example,  in  California  you  get  beefsteak  for  35  cents  a  pound 
and  in  Washington  you  pay  50  cents. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  Does  the  Government  pay  a  carpenter  in  one  place 
$7  a  day  and  in  another  place  $5  a  day^ 

Mr.  CORY.  Undoubtedly. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  presume  you  know. 

Mr.  CORY.  Oh,  yes ;  the  Reclamation  Service  has  had  projects  for 
the  past  17  years  all  over  the  West  and  the  scale  of  wages  has  not 
been  identically  the  same  for  the  same  work. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  The  Government  pays  the  soldiers  here  in  Wash- 
ington, where  the  cost  of  living  is  higher  than  it  is  in  some  other 
sections — does  the  Government  pay  the  soldiers  here  the  same  wages 
here  in  Washington  that  it  would  out  at  Fort  Sill  or  somewhere  else? 

Mr.  CORY.  I  think  they  do,  absolutely. 


798  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Mr.  VAILE.  I  think,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  you  will  allow  a  suggestion, 
the  question  is  no  comparison  at  all.  The  soldier  has  an  occupation 
which  is  not  comparable  to  anything  else  in  the  world.  Furthermore, 
it  is  an  occupation  which  he  is  required  to  render  as  a  matter  of  pub- 
lic safety. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  And  the  Government  furnishes  him  with  his  living. 

Mr.  CORY.  Of  course,  in  that  particular  there  is  also  some  com- 
plaint, you  know,  because  soldiers  at  $35  a  month  are  working  side 
by  side  in  some  camps  with  men  getting  three  dollars  and  a  half  a 
day  and  doing  identically  the  same  work. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen,  we  will  have  to  go  to  the  House  and 
this  will  conclude  our  hearings  unless  you  have  another  question  to 
ask. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  No;  but  the  governor  who  spoke  just  before,  made  a 
statement  that  I  thought  ought  not  to  go  without  a  challenge,  that 
the  Loyal  Legion  was  practically  speaking  unanimously  in  favor  of 
the  Mondell  bill.  Now,  there  has  been  a  representative  of  that  or- 
ganization here  several  days,  and  in  his  talk  with  me  he  specified  the 
fact  that  they  were  not — at  least  that  he  commended  the  thought  that 
I  have  been.advancing,  of  the  segregated  project. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Does  he  want  to  apupear  before  the  committee? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  shall  either  suggest  that  this  gentleman  be  allowed 
to  appear  or  that  we  get  his  views  before  accepting  unreservedly 
the  governor's  statement  in  regard  to  the  position  of  that  organi- 
zation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  your  statement  contrary  to  the  gov- 
ernor's statement. 

Mr.  BENHAM.  And  let  us  find  out  who  is  right. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Do  you  want  to  present  that  witness  to  the  com- 
mittee ? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  should  say  that  he  ought  to  have  an  opportunity  to 
appear. 

Mr.  NICHOLS.  Is  he  in  town? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  He  was  in  the  last  day  or  two. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  governor  did  not  assume  to  speak  for  the 
legion;  he  gave  his  opinion  and  Mr.  Beiiham  has  given  his  opinion 
contrary  to  it,  and  it  is  a  matter  for  the  committee  and  the  House 
to  find  out. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  is  the  order,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

Mr.  BENHAM.  I  understand  we  have  one  hour  and  eight  minutes 
more. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No ;  this  closes  our  hearings. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  the  chairman  will  notify  us  when  we  will  take 
up  the  bill  for  consideration  by  the  committee? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Of  course,  the  next  meeting  day  is  next  Tuesday. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  But  the  closing  of  the  hearings,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, doesn't  preclude  the  privilege  that  members  might  have  in 
calling  for  witnesses  or  officers  of  the  Government  for  additional 
information. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  For  the  committee,  yes. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  But  that  will  be  for  the  information  of  the  com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then  I  understand  the  hearings  are  closed  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  hearings  arc  closed. 

(Whereupon,  at  12.15  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  committee  adjourned.) 


APPENDIX  A 


REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  INTERIOR 

ON 

H.  R.  487 

A  BILL  TO  PROVIDE  EMPLOYMENT  AND  RURAL  HOMES 

FOR  THOSE  WHO  HAVE  SERVED  WITH  THE  MILITARY 

AND  NAVAL  FORCES  THROUGH  THE  RECLAMATION 

OF  LANDS  TO  BE  KNOWN  AS  THE  "  NATIONAL 

SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT  ACT." 


133319—11 


HOMES  FOE  SOLDIEES. 


DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR. 

MY  DEAR  MR.  SINNOTT:  I  have  your  letter  of  May  20,  1919,  in- 
closing copy  of  the  bill  H.  R.  487,  upon  which  you  request  an  early 
report  to  your  committee. 

It  is  drawn  upon  lines  similar  to  those  bills  introduced  in  the 
last  session  of  the  Sixty-fifth  Congress  by  Representative  Taylor, 
of  Colorado  (H.  R.  15993),  and  Representative  Byrnes  of  South 
Carolina  (H.  R.  13651),  and  upon  which  this  department  made 
favorable  reports.  It  is  also,  in  its  main  features,  in  harmony 
with  bills  introduced  in  the  present  Congress  by  Representatives 
Knutson  (H.  R.  274),  Blanton  (H.  R,  294),  Raker  (H.  R.  415), 
Taylor  of  Colorado  (H.  R,  457),  Byrnes  of  South  Carolina  (H.  R. 
479),  and  Ferris  (H.  R.  492),  which  measures  have  not  yet  been 
formally  presented  to  the  department  for  consideration. 

One  of  the  principal  differences  between  H.  R.  487  and  the  meas- 
ures introduced  in  the  last  session  of  Congress  is  that  the  former 
bill  authorizes  an  appropriation  of  $500,000,000,  while  the  measures 
introduced  at  the  last  session  authorized  smaller  amounts.  Various 
other  minor  changes  have  been  made  with  the  view  of  advancing 
the  interests  of  the  soldiers  and  for  the  better  protection  of  the 
investment  of  the  United  States. 

The  scope  of  the  bill  is  clearly  indicated  by  its  title,  which  is,  "A 
bill  to  provide  employment  and  rural  homes  for  those  who  have 
served  with  the  military  and  naval  forces  through  the  reclama- 
tion of  lands,  to  be  known  as  the  *  National  Soldier  Settlement  Act.' " 

The  enactment  of  this  legislation  will  help  the  soldier — 

1.  By  providing  him  with  employment  upon  his  separation  from 
the  military  service,  affording  him  an  opportunity  not  only  to  gain 
a  livelihood  but  to  acquire  and  save  the  funds  necessary  for  the 
payment  of  the  first  installment  upon  his  farm. 

2.  By  providing  him  with  the  opportunity  for  securing  an  im- 
proved farm  home. 

3.  Providing  the  money  or  credit  needed  to  improve  or  equip  his 
farm  and  to  secure  same  at  a  wholesale  price. 

4.  Reduce  the  cost  of  farm  buildings  and  other  permanent  im- 
provements through  the  purchase  of  material  in  wholesale  quanti- 
ties and  for  cash. 

5.  Give  him   an  opportunity  to  get  practical   advice  regarding 
farming  operations. 

6.  Permit  of  the  organizing  of  community  settlements  for  more 
effective  buying  of  what  the  settlers  need  and  the  selling  of  what 
they  produce. 


4  HOMES   FOE   SOLDIERS. 

7.  Make  farming  more  profitable  and  attractive  by  the  creation 
of  the  cooperative  organization  and  the  resulting  closer  social  and 
business  relations. 

The  idea  of  this  bill  has  had  the  serious  attention  of  this  depart- 
ment for  more  than  a  year,  and  it  has  been  studied  from  many 
angles.  Careful  preliminary  investigations  of  the  country  have 
been  made  as  a  result  of  the  action  tof  the  last  Congress  making 
appropriations  for  an  examination  of  the  swamp,  cut-over,  and  arid 
lands.  A  report  of  this  work  is  nearly  ready  for  submission  to 
Congress. 

Since  February  of  this  year  an  effort  has  been  made  to  learn,  if 
possible,  the  desires  of  our  soldiers  in  regard  to  taking  up  farm  life, 
with  the  result  that  nearly  50,000  soldiers  have  written  expressing 
their  interest  in  the  proposition  and  stating  that  they  would  like 
to  have  an  opportunity  to  get  employment  in  connection  with  the 
work  and  to  take  up  a  farm  in  a  soldier  settlement.  These  responses 
classified  by  the  State  from  which  the  soldier  came  are  listed  in  the 
accompanying  Exhibit  A. 

I  have  also  communicated  with  the  governors  of  each  of  the  States 
suggesting  a  form  of  State  legislation  for  cooperation  with  the  Gov- 
ernment in  case  authority  is  given  by  Congress  for  working  out  a 
soldier-settlement  plan,  and  most  of  the  States  have  expressed  strong 
interest  in  the  matter.  I  am  transmitting  herewith  Exhibit  B,  a 
statement  showing  the  legislation  and  resolutions  adopted  by  the 
several  States  in  regard  to  this  matter. 

In  most  of  the  States  which  have  not  by  law  established  organi- 
zations for  cooperation  with  the  United  States,  the  governors  have 
appointed  committees,  which  are  prepared  to  represent  the  State  in 
this  work. 

Public  interest  in  this  proposition  is  indicated  in  a  measure  by 
the  letters  and  action  of  organizations  of  all  kinds  throughout  the 
country.  A  statement  of  such  of  these  resolutions  as  have  reached 
the  department  is  given  in  Exhibit  C. 

Foreign  countries  engaged  in  the  war  have  recognized  the  problem 
and  have  adopted  methods  of  solving  it  similar  to  that  proposed 
by  this  bill.  A  compilation  of  the  laws  adopted  in  the  English- 
speaking  countries  is  inclosed,  as  Exhibit  D. 

The  foregoing  will  afford  an  indication  of  the  attitude  toward 
the  soldier-settlement  plan  on  the  part  of  the  soldiers,  the  State 
Governments,  foreign  governments,  and  our  people  generally. 

I  believe  that  the  bill  is  one  of  the  most  important  pieces  of 
constructive  legislation  before  Congress,  and  recommend  its  early 
passage. 

Cordially,  yours, 

FRANKLIN  K.  LANE, 

Secretary. 

Hon.  N.  J.  SINNOTT, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Public  Lands, 

House  of  Representatives. 

Inclosure  1813. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  5 

DEPARTMENT  or  THE  INTERIOR, 

Washington,  May  26,  1919. 

DEAR  MR.  SINNOTT:  I  am  in  receipt  of  your  request  of  May  24 
for  report  on  H.  R.  492,  introduced  by  Representative  Ferris,  pro- 
viding for  employment  and  homes  for  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines 
of  the  late  war. 

The  end  sought  to  be  accomplished  is  similar  with  that  proposed 
in  bills  introduced  during  the  last  session  of  Congress  by  Representa- 
tives Taylor,  Byrnes,  and  others,  and  with  H.  R.  487  of  the  present 
session,  upon  which  the  department  made  a  report  May  22,  1919. 
H.  R.  492  gives  broad  general  authority  to  the  Secretary  of  the  In- 
terior to  carry  on  the  work  of  establishing  farm  homes  and  to  employ 
soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  in  the  work,  and  is  well  designed  to 
accomplish  the  purpose  sought.  H.  R.  487  goes  somewhat  more  into 
detail  and  contains  special  limitations  on  certain  points. 

I  heartily  favor  the  enactment  of  legislation  proposed  in  both  bills, 
and  trust  your  committee  may  see  fit  to  take  early  action. 
Cordially,  yours, 

FRANKLIN  K.  LANE. 
Hon.  NICHOLAS  J.  SINNOTT, 

House  of  Representatives. 


EXHIBIT  A. 


Soldier  cards  received  to  noon,  Wednesday,  May  21,  1919 : 


Alabama 

644 

New  Mexico 

214 

Arizona 

268 

New    York 

2,801 

Arkansas    _ 

_     _            820 

North  Carolina 

441 

California 

3  592 

North  Dakota 

643 

Colorado 

729 

Ohio 

1,700 

Connecticut 

299 

Oklahoma 

1,225 

Delaware 

45 

Oregon 

1  306 

Florida 

358 

Pennsylvania 

1,981 

Georgia 

633 

Rhode    Island 

154 

Idaho 

715 

South  Carolina 

294 

Illinois 

3,293 

South  Dakota 

488 

Indiana 

1  717 

Tennessee 

685 

Iowa 

1  578 

Texas 

2,002 

Kansas 

1  263 

Utah 

408 

Kentucky 

986 

Vermont 

75 

Louisiana 

499 

Virginia 

639 

Maine                      _  _  _ 

145 

Washington 

_  _     1,618 

Maryland 

243 

West  Virginia 

433 

Massachusetts 

979 

Wisconsin                       _  _ 

1,  612 

Michigan 

_     1,  750 

Wyoming 

177 

Minnesota 

1,719 

District   of  Columbia^  

280 

Mississippi 

587 

Alaska                        _  _ 

177 

Missouri 

1,811 

Canada 

47 

Montana 

835 

Incomplete   addresses  _ 

909 

Nebraska  _ 

859 

Camps  and  ships 

936 

Nevada 

80 

Foreign             _  _ 

31 

113 

New    Jersey 

744 

Grand  total     . 

_     48.  520 

6  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

EXHIBIT  B. 

STATE    ACTION    OX    THE    SOLDIER-SETTLEMENT   PLAN. 

The  following  is  a  summary  of  the  action  taken  by  the  various  States  on 
the  soldier-settlement  plan  of'  the  Department  of  the  Interior.  Information  re- 
lating to  each  State  has  been  checked,  so  far  as  possible,  by  correspondence 
with  the  secretary  of  state,  the  governor,  other  State  officials,  and  private  in- 
dividuals : 

Alabama. 

The  legislature  1ms  marled  a  bill  (S.  198),  approved  February  18,  1919, 
(•renting  a  commission  known  as  the  Alabama  Post-War  Council  of  Defense, 
consisting  of  nine  members,  as  follows :  Gov.  Kilby,  chairman,  Montgomery  ; 
Fred  H.  Gormley,  vice  chairman.  Montgomery;  Dr.  J.  F.  Dugger,  Auburn;  Mrs. 
James  F.  Hooper,  Selina ;  Dr.  Thomas  M.  Owen,  Montgomery ;  W.  S.  Keller, 
Montgomery ;  Dr.  W.  S.  Welch,  Montgomery ;  Spright  Do  well,  Montomery  ;  and 
M.  C.  Allgood,  Montgomery.  This  commission  is  officially  in  charge  of  soldier- 
settlement  matters  for  the  State. 

It  is  understood  that  a  soldier-settlement  bill  was  introduced  at  the  January 
session,  but  was  not  passed. 

The  legislature  passed  a  memorial,  No.  70  (H.  J.  R.  54),  approved  February 
15,  1919,  urging  the  State  delegation  in  Congress  to  do  everything  possible  to 
secure  the  enactment  of  a  Federal  soldier-settlement  law. 

The  secretary  of  state  states  that  "  the  legislature  will  reconvene  early  in 
July  and  it  is  not  unlikely  that  such  legislation  will  be  introduced  and  passed." 

Arizona. 

The  legislature  has  enacted  an  act  (Substitute  H.  B.  51).  approved  March, 
1919,  providing  for  cooperation  between  the  State  and  the  United  States  and 
appropriating  "  such  sum  as  may  be  necessary." 

The  legislature  also  passed  House  Joint  Resolution  No.  5,  approved  February 
6,  1919,  approving  the  plan  and  urging  the  enactment  of  Federal  legislation. 

Arkansas. 

The  legislature  passed  a  joint  resolution  urging  the  Arkansas  congressional 
delegation  to  do  everything  possible  for  Federal  soldier-settlement  legislation ; 
and  that  Gov.  Brough  wired  President  Wilson  urging  his  active  support  of 
Federal  legislation. 

The  governor  has  appointed  the  following  committee  to  represent  the  State  in 
soldier-settlement  matters:  Fred  Heiskell,  chairman.  Gazette  Building,  Little 
Rock;  W.  M.  Hardy,  Southern  Trust  Building,  Little  Rock;  E.  J.  Bodman, 
Union  Trust  Co.,  Little  Rock ;  C.  T.  Coleman,  1101  Boyle  Building.  Little  Rock ; 
Wallace  Townsend.  1104  Boyle  Building,  Little  Rock;  Gen.  Loyd  England, 
Boyle  Building,  Little  Rock;  Henry  Moore,  jr.,  Texarkana;  Allen  Kennedy, 
Fort  Smith;  C.  J.  Mansfield,  Warren;  Leo  Andrews,  Pine  Bluff;  R.  B.  Camp- 
bell, Helena ;  and  D.  C.  Welty,  Boyle  Building.  Little  Rock. 

California. 

The  legislature  has  enacted  an  act  (S.  246)  providing  for  a  referendum  to 
the  people  of  a  bond  issue  of  $10,000,000  for  soldier  settlements ;  approved 
April,  1919. 

The  legislature  has  also  enacted  an  act  (S.  221),  approved  April.  1919,  pro- 
viding for  soldier  settlements  in  cooperation  with  the  United  States  and 
carrying  an  appropriation  of  $1,000,000. 

It  is  understood  unofficially  that  the  legislature  has  passed  a  joint  resolu- 
tion urging  the  adoption  by  Congress  of  soldier-settlement  legislation. 

Colorado. 

The  legislature  has  enacted  an  act  (S.  262),  approved  April  9,  1919,  pro- 
viding for  cooperation  in  soldier  settlements  with  the  Federal  Governnioni. 

It  is  understood  unofficially  that  the  legislature  passed  a  resolution  indorsing 
the  soldier-settlement  legislation  before  the  recent  Congress. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  7 

Connecticut. 

Gov.  Holcomb  urged  the  adoption  of  soldier-settlement  legislation  in  his 
message  to  the  general  assembly  and  introduced  a  bill  early  in  the  session 
*'  which  covered  the  ground  substantially,"  but  no  action  was  taken. 

Delaware. 

The  legislature  has  passed  a  bill  (H.  B.  182),  approved  April  2,  1919,  pro- 
viding for  the  creation  of  a  reconstruction  commission,  which  is  in  charge  of 
soldier-settlement  matters  for  the  State,  and  making  an  appropriation  of 
$25,000.  The  governor  has  appointed  the  following  members  of  the  commis- 
sion:  Mrs.  Charles  R.  Miller,  1  Red  Oak  Road,  Wilmington;  Mrs.  John  B. 
Button,  Dover;  Mrs.  Ella  Emory,  Seaford ;  W.  G.  Taylor,  Wilmington;  Frank 
R.  Poole,  McDonough ;  Arley  B.  Magee,  Dover ;  George  R.  Hall,  Milford. 

Florida. 

The  legislature  enacted  a  bill  (No.  21),  approved  December  7,  1918,  author- 
izing the  internal  improvement  board  to  use  State  lands  for  soldier  settle- 
ments and  to  cooperate  with  the  United  States. 

The  legislature  adopted  a  concurrent  resolution  (No.  2),  approved  November 
25,  1918,  inviting  Secretary  Lane  to  address  the  legislature  on  the  soldier- 
settlement  question. 

The  governor  has  appointed  the  following  commission  to  represent  the  State 
in  soldier-settlement  matters:  Jules  M.  Burguieres,  chairman,  West  Palm 
Beach;  R.  W.  Storrs,  Consolidated  Building,  Jacksonville;  W.  H.  Coachman, 
Consolidated  Building,  Jacksonville. 

Georgia. 

A  soldier-settlement  bill  is  being  drafted  to  be  introduced  in  the  legislature 
which  convenes  in  June. 

The  governor  has  appointed  a  committee  to  represent  the  State  in  soldier 
settlement  matters  as  follows :  Alex  K.  Sessoms,  chairman,  Cogdell ;  T.  E. 
Phillips,  Tifton;  W.  B.  Roddenbery,  Cairo;  S.  C.  Townsend,  St.  Marys;  J.  J. 
Brown,  Atlanta ;  F.  H.  Abbott,  Waycross ;  Neal  L.  Gillis,  Covena ;  C.  S.  Barrett, 
Union  City;  J.  Phil  Campbell.  Athens;  J.  E.  Bodenhamer,  Decatur ;  Harvie 
Jordan,  Monticello;  W.  A.  Johnson,  Savannah;  J.  B,  Way,  ThOmasville;  George 
B.  Davis,  Dublin ;  W.  T.  Staten,  Yaldosta ;  N.  E.  French,  Valdosta ;  W.  A. 
Charters,  Gainesville ;  S.  B.  Yow,  Labonia ;  J.  B.  Mills,  Atlanta ;  A.  J.  Fleming, 
Atlanta ;  H.  M.  Stanley,  Atlanta ;  Claude  Bond,  Toccoa ;  Josiah  Blasingame, 
Jersey ;  Lieut.  J.  A.  Dew,  Camp  Gordon. 

Idalio. 

The  legislature  has  enacted  a  bill  (H.  B.  No.  100),  approved  March  7,  1919, 
providing  for  cooperation  in  soldier  settlements  with  the  Federal  Government, 
and  appropriating  $100,000,  conditioned  on  the  passage  of  similar  legislation  by 
Congress.  This  bill  creates  a  soldier  settlement  board  consisting  of  the  follow- 
ing: Miles  Cannon,  commissioner  of  agriculture,  Boise;  William  J.  Hall  com- 
missioner of  public  works,  Boise ;  Warren  G.  Swendsen,  commissioner  of  recla- 
mation, Boise. 

Illinois. 

A  bill  has  been  introduced  (H.  B.  No.  121)  providing  for  soldier  settlements 
in  cooperation  with  the  United  States  and  carrying  an  appropriation  of 
$1,250,000. 

A  bill  has  been  introduced  (S.  No.  90)  authorizing  the  department  of  public- 
works  and  buildings  to  cooperate  with  the  department  of  the  interior  in  the 
reclamation,  improvement,  and  sale  of  lands  within  the  State  for  soldier  settle- 
ments. 

On  April  21.  1919,  the  secretary  of  state  wrote  that  both  bills  were  pending 
before  the  legislature. 


8  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Indiana. 

A  concurrent  resolution  was  introduced  in  the  legislature  favoring  the 
passage  by  Congress  of  a  bill  making  reclaimed  public  land  available  for  soldier 
settlements. 

On  April  25  the  governor  wrote  that  "  no  plans  have  been  made  for  soldier 
settlements  in  Indiana  for  the  reason  that  there  is  no  unoccupied  land  in  the 
State  and  plans  which  might  be  feasible  in  other  States  would  not  be  practical 
here." 

Iowa. 

Drafts  of  soldier-settlement  bills  were  submitted  by  the  secretary  of  state  to 
the  committee  on  agriculture  of  the  senate,  but  no  action  seems  to  have  been 
taken. 


A  concurrent  resolution  was  introduced,  to  be  voted  upon  at  the  general  elec- 
tion in  1920,  to  amend  the  constitution  of  Kansas  to  create  a  fund  to  encourage 
the  purchase,  improvement,  and  ownership  of  agricultural  lands  and  the  occu- 
pancy and  cultivation  thereof,  preference  to  be  given  to  honorably  discharged 
soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines. 

Gov.  Allen  indorsed  the  soldier-settlement  plan  in  his  message  to  the  legis- 
lature. 

Kentucky. 

The  governor  has  appointed  the  following  soldier-settlement  committee  to 
represent  the  State,  the  legislature  not  being  in  session  until  1920:  Dr.  Frank 
L.  McVey,  chairman,  Lexington:  Harvey  Chenault,  Richmond:  Owsley  P.nnvn, 
Louisville:  W.  A.  Wick  less.  Greenville:  W.  F.  Bradshaw,  Paducah. 

Lov4»iaM. 

It  is  understood,  unofficially,  that  Gov.  Pleasant  wired  the  President  asking 
his  active  support  of  Federal  soldier-settlement  legislation. 

The  governor  has  appointed  the  following  soldier-settlement  committee  to 
represent  the  State:  E.  E.  Lafaye,  New  Orleans;  H.  B.  Bayliss,  general  man- 
ager, Association  of  Commerce,  Lake  Charles  ;  Harry  P.  Gamble,  New  Orleans  ; 
W.  R.  Dodson,  Baton  Rouge. 

The  legislature  convenes  in  May,  1920. 

Maine. 

The  governor's  message  to  the  legislature  urges  cooperation  with  the  United 
States  in  soldier  settlement. 

The  legislature  has  enacted  a  bill  (chapter  189),  approved  April  4,  1919,  pro- 
viding for  cooperation  with  the  United  States  in  soldier  settlements,  and  appro- 
priating "  so  much  of  the  reserve  land  fund  not  otherwise  invested  as  may  be 
necessary  to  carry  out  the  provisions  of  this  act." 

The  soldier-settlement  board  created  by  the  act  consists  of  the  governor,  the 
State  auditor,  the  land  agent  and  forest  commissioner,  the  commissioner  of  agri- 
culture, and  the  State  superintendent  of  schools. 

Maryland. 

The  general  assembly  does  not  meet  until  January.  1920.  The  governor  has 
appointed  the  following  committee  to  represent  the  State  in  soldier-settlement 
matters:  John  M.  Dennis  (former  State  treasurer)  ;  Phillips  Lee  Goldsbordugh 
former  governor)  ;  Dr.  A.  F.  Woods,  president  of  the  State  College  of  Agricul- 
ture; C.  S.  Ucker,  vice  president  Southern  Settlement  and  Development  Organi- 
zation, Continental  Building,  Baltimore;  William  McKenney  ;  William  J.  Frere; 
Samuel  L.  Byrn. 

Massachusetts. 

The  governor  indorsed  the  proposal  of  the  reclamation  of  lands  for  returned 
soldiers  in  his  message  to  the  legislature. 

Two  bills  were  introduced  (H.  Doc.  290  and  818)  and  a  merger  bill  (S.  Doc. 
371)  was  reported  by  the  committee  on  reconstruction.  This  bill  provides  for 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  9 

the  creation  of  The  Massachusetts  Farm  Settlement  Corporation  and  for  co- 
operation with  the  United  States  on  soldier  settlements.  The  bill  carries  an 
appropriaion  of  $500,000. 

Michigan. 

A  soldier-settlement  bill  providing  for  cooperation  with  the  United  States  was 
introduced  in  the  legislature,  but  no  action  taken  thereon. 

The  governor  appointed  a  commission  of  20  members  "  to  formulate  a  general 
land  settlement  policy  for  our  returning  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines,  and  also 
for  our  industrial  workers."  This  commission  in  its  report  of  March  12,  1919. 
indorses  the  soldier-settlement  plan  of  the  Department  of  the  Interior.  A 
special  committee  of  the  commission  later  reported  that  "adequate  laws  were 
now  in  force  to  carry  into  effect  the  duties  of  a  land  settlement  policy  for  the 
State  of  Michigan  in  harmony  with  the  general  suggestions  in  the  report." 

The  Michigan  reconstruction  committee,  appointed  by  the  governor,  submitted 
a  report  on  March  11,  1919.  recommending  that  "  the  State  cooperate  with  the 
Department  of  the  Interior  in  providing  farms  for  returned  soldiers  and  others 
desiring  laud." 

It  is  understood  that  the  governor  has  appointed  a  State-wide  committee 
to  act  in  soldier-settlement  and  reclamation  matters,  affiliated  with  the  Lake 
States  committee,  representing  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  and  Michigan. 

Minnesota. 

\  soldier-settlement  bill  was  introduced  in  the  legislature,  providing  for  co- 
operation with  the  United  States,  but  no  action  was  taken  thereon. 

A  bill  was  introduced  providing  for  the  organiaz-tion  of  a  State-colonization 
commission  to  supervise  the  colonization  of  lands,  which  also  provides  for  co- 
operation with  the  Federal  Government. 

The  governor  appointed  the  following  committee  on  land  settlement  for 
returning  soldiers  and  industrial  workers:  D.  A.  Wallace,  chairman,  Duluth  ; 
Charles  P.  Craig,  Duluth  ;  C.  G.  Selvig  :  C.  R.  Middleton  ;  E.  F.  Farmers. 

The  legislature  adjourned  on  April  24. 

It  is  understood  that  the  governor  has  appointed  a  State-wide  committee  to 
act  in  soldier-settlement  and  reclamation  matters,  affiliated  with  the  Lake 
States  committee,  representing  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  and  Michigan. 


The  legislature  meets  in  January,  1920.  '."'•'  i 

The*following  committee  has  been  appointed  to  represent  the  State  jn  soldier- 
settlement  matters,  as  the  result  of  a  State-wide  meeting  to  formulate  a  policy  : 
P.  P.  Garner,  commissioner  of  agriculture,  chairman,  Jackson  ;  C.  T.  Stevens, 
Hattiesburg  ;  J.  B.  Lisk,  Jackson  ;  R.  M.  Weaver,  Corinth  ;  J.  C.  Seller,  Yazoo 
City  :  Lamar  Henington,  Hattiesburg  ;  M.  S.  Connor,  Seminary  ;  H.  A.  Camp, 
Hattiesburg. 

Missouri. 

The  governor  indorsed  the  soldier-settlement  plan  in  his  message  to  the 
general  assembly  on  January  10,  1919. 

The  general  assembly  enacted  a  bill  (S.  No.  355),  approved  April,  1919,  pro- 
viding for  soldier  settlements  in  cooperation  with  the  United  States,  and  carry- 
ing an  appropriation  of  $10,000. 

The  general  assembly  also  enacted  a  joint  and  concurrent  resolution  (No. 
15).  approved  April,  1919,  enabling  the  people,  to  vote  a  bond  issue  of 
$1.000,000  to  constitute  a  revolving  fund  to  provide  funds  to  carry  out  the 
provisions  of  senate  bill  No.  355,  above. 

The  soldier-settlement  board  is  composed  of  the  following  :  Dr.  Brydou,  com- 
missioner of  land  reclamation,  chairman,  Jefferson  City  :  Dean  F.  B.  Mumford, 
director  of  the  agricultural  college.  Columbia  ;  Dean  E.  J.  McCausland,  director 
of  the  college  of  engineering,  Columbia. 

Montana. 

The  legislature  enacted  a  bill  (H.  B.  No.  130),  approved  March  11.  1919, 
providing  for  cooperation  with  the  Federal  Government  in  soldier  settlements 
and  carrying  an  appropriation  of  $50,000. 


10  HOMES   FOB  SOLDIERS. 

The  legislature  also  passed  a  bill  ( — )  approved,  appropriating  $200,000 

for  the  relief  of  soldiers,  containing  a  provision  that  the  soldier-settlement  act 
board  may  use  such  money  as  may  be  necessary  from  this  appropriation  in 
addition  to  the  appropriation  of  $50,000  above  referred  to. 

Nebraska. 

A  soldier-settlement  bill  was  introduced  in  the  legislature,  passed  the  house, 
but  failed  of  passage  in  the  senate,  although  its  passage  was  urged  by  the 
governor. 

The  legislature  has  now  adjourned. 

Nevada. 

The  governor  urged  the  passage  of  soldier-settlement  legislation  in  his  mes- 
sage to  the  legislature. 

The  legislature  enacted  a  bill  (assembly  bill  No.  219),  approved  March  28, 
1919,  providing  for  borrowing  $1,000,000  by  the  sale  of  bonds  for  the  reclama- 
tion, improvement,  and  equipment  of  lands  within  the  State  for  rural  homes 
for  soldiers,  sailors,  marines,  and  other  loyal  citizens;  and  providing  for  co- 
operation with  the  Federal  Government 

New  Hampshire. 

So  far  as  reported  no  action  on  soldier  settlements  has  been  taken  by  the 
legislature. 

New  Jersey. 

On  December  20,  1918,  the  governor  wrote  to  Secretary  Lane  as  follows: 

"  Let  me  assure  you  that  New  Jersey  is  very  desirous  of  cooperating  with 
you  in  your  very  commendable  desire  to  meet  this  problem  in  every  way  possible, 
and  you  may  be  sure  that  every  resource  of  the  State  will  be  placed  at  your 
disposal." 

A  bill  (assembly,  No.  38)  was  introduced  in  the  legislature  providing  for 
a  State  land  settlement  board  and  carrying  an  appropriation  of  $300,000  for 
the  purchase  of  lands  to  be  divided  into  small  farms  and  for  the  establishment 
of  farm  colonies.  No  action  was  taken  on  this  bill. 

The  legislature  passed  a  bill  (S.  No.  5),  approved  March  26,  1919,  creating  a 
State  employment  bureau,  with  power,  among  other  things,  to  secure  farm 
homes  for  soldiers  and  sailors.  • 

Appropriation  was  made  to  permit  the  State  department  of  conservation  and 
development  to  create  a  land  registration  bureau  to  assist  in  the  placing  of  men 
on  available  land. 

New  Mexico. 

The  legislature  passed  a  joint  memorial  (No.  6)  urging  the  adoption  by  Con- 
gress of  soldier-settlement  legislation. 

The  legislature  enacted  a  bill  (H.  B.  No.  204),  approved  March,  1919,  provid- 
ing for  cooperation  with  the  United  States  in  soldier  settlements,  making  an 
appropriation  of  $30,000  and  one-half  the  proceeds  derived  from  the  rentals  or 
sales  of  certain  State  lands.  The  members  of  the  soldier-settlement  board  are : 
Edward  Everett  Young,  chairman,  Santa  Fe ;  Leslie  M.  Gillett,  State  engineer ; 
Dr.  A.  D.  Crile,  president  of  the  State  college. 

New  York. 

Two  bills  (senate  No.  417  and  assembly  No.  615)  were  introduced  in  the  legis- 
lature providing  for  cooperation  with  the  United  States  in  soldier  settlements. 
Each  bill  carried  an  appropriation  of  $250,000.  The  legislature  adjourned  with- 
out taking  action. 

Charles  L.  Wilson,  commissioner  of  agriculture,  department  of  farms  and 
markets,  Albany,  through  his  farm  service  bureau,  furnishes  advice  to  re- 
turned soldiers  regarding  farming  possibilities  in  the  State,  and  puts  them  in 
touch  with  good  farms  now  on  the  market. 


HOMES   FOB  SOLDIERS.  11 

North  Carolina. 

A  soldier-settlement  bill  was  introduced  in  the  legislature,  but  no  action  was 
taken  prior  to  adjournment. 

It  is  understood  that  the  legislature  passed  a  resolution  urging  the  passage 
of  soldier-settlement  legislation  by  Congress. 

The  following  committee  has  been  appointed  by  the  governor  to  represent  the 
State  in  soldier-settlement  matters :  George  Herbert  Smith,  Wilmington ;  Capt. 
George  T.  Leach,  Washington ;  J.  R.  Page,  Aberdeen. 

North  Dakota. 

A  bill  (H.  B.  No.  123)  was  introduced  in  the  legislature  providing  for  cooper- 
ation in  soldier  settlements  with  the  United  States  and  carrying  an  appropria- 
tion of  $200,000  as  a  soldier-settlement  and  immigration  fund,  but  no  action 
was  taken  prior  to  adjournment. 

The  legislature  passed  a  bill  (H.  B.  No.  128),  approved  March  6,  1919,  pro- 
viding for  a  "  Returned  Soldier  Fund  "  to  enable  returned  soldiers  to  secure  a 
home  or  a  farm  home,  etc.,  each  soldier  being  entitled  to  $25  a  month  for  each 
month  or  fraction  of  a  month  he  was  in  the  service. 

Ohio. 

On  March  11,  1919,  the  governor  wrote  to  Secretary  Lane  as  follows : 
"  You  can  depend  upon  our  State  giving  you  its  maximum  cooperation  in  fur- 
therance of  your  plan  to  bring  about  a  soldiers'  movement  to  the  soil." 
No  action  taken  ,by  the  legislature  on  soldier-settlement  legislation. 

Oklahoma. 

A  bill  (S.  11)  was  introduced  in  the  legislature  providing  for  soldier  settle- 
ments in  cooperation  with  the  United  States,  but  action  on.it  has  been  de- 
ferred awaiting  action  by  Congress. 

It  is  understood  that  the  legislature  passed  a  joint  resolution  memorializing 
Congress  in  favor  of  the  enactment  of  soldier-settlement  legislation. 

The  legislature  passed  the  home  ownership  bill,  under  which  the  State  can 
loan  to  men  who  desire  to  go  on  the  land  and  make  their  home,  practically  all 
of  the  purchase  price  of  the  land. 

Oregon. 

The  legislature  passed  a  joint  resolution  (No.  16)  memorializing  Congress  in 
favor  of  a  soldier-settlement  bill. 

The  legislature  enacted  a  bill  (S.  B.  147),  filed  in  the  office  of  the  secretary 
of  state  March  4,  1919,  providing  for  cooperation  with  the  United  States  in 
soldier  settlements,  creating  the  Oregon  Land  Settlement  Commission,  and 
making  an  appropriation  of  $50.000.  The  secretary  and  manager  of  the  com- 
mission is  William  H.  Crawford,  605  Oregon  Building,  Portland,  Oreg. 

The  legislature  enacted  a  bill  (S.  B.  266),  filed  in  the  office  of  the  secretary 
of  state  March  4,  1919,  referring  to  the  people  at  a  special  election  to  be  held 
June  3,  3919,  the  question  of  authorizing  the  sale  of  bonds  in  the  amount  of 
$2,  647,000  for  soldier  settlement  and  general  reclamation  in  cooperation  with 
the  United  States. 

Pennsylvania. 

The  secretary  of  state  writes  on  April  21  that  no  soldier-settlement  bills  have 
been  introduced  in  the  legislature. 

On  May  29,  P.  D.  Beary,  adjutant  general,  Harrisburg,  wrote  as  follows: 
"  No  committees  or  commissions  have  been  appointed  in  connection  with  the 
soldier-settlement  problem.  We  have,  however,  in  the  State  a  welfare  commis- 
sion, consisting  of  the  governor,  lieutenant  governor,  auditor  general,  state 
treasurer,  and  adjutant  general,  and  any  question  of  this  kind  could  be  taken 
up  under  the  law  by  them,  and  they  could  apply  funds  in  their  possession  for 
such  a  purpose  if  deemed  advisable." 

South  Carolina. 

The  general  assembly  on  February  19,  1919.  passed  two  concurrent  resolutions 
(H.  548-S.  560,  and  H.  555),  urging  the  enactment  by  Congress  of  soldier-set- 
tlement legislation. 


12  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

A  soldier-settlement  bill  (S.  49)  was  introduced. 

The  general  appropriation  bill  (calendar  No.  466),  contains  a  provision  "  that 
the  commissioner  of  agriculture,  commerce  and  industries  be,  and  he  hereby  is,, 
authorized  to  cooperate  with  the  Federal  Government,  through  its  agents,  in 
the  so-called  soldier-settlement  work,  and  that  the  said  commissioner  be  au- 
thorized to  gather  statistics  and  to  do  other  such  work  as  now  provided  by 
law,  for  the  purpose  of  getting  options,  if  necessary,  upon  the  untenanted  lands 
of  the  State  available  for  colonization  and  development." 

The  governor  has  appointed  the  following  commission  to  represent  the  State 
in  soldier-settlement  matters:  R.  N.  Lathan,  chairman,  Charleston;  William 
Gifford,  Gifford ;  W.  H.  Andrews,  Andrews ;  E.  W.  Durant,  Charleston ;  Joseph 
Shank,  Georgetown. 

South  Dakota. 

The  legislature  has  enacted  a  bill  (S.  B.  No.  255),  approved  March,  1919,. 
providing  for  cooperation  with  the  United  States  in  soldier  settlements,  making 
an  appropriation  of  $100,000,  and  authorizing  a  bond  issue  of  $1,000,000. 

Tennessee. 

The  legislature  enacted  a  bill  (H.  B.  447),  approved  April  16,  1919,  providing 
for  cooperation  with  the  United  States  in  soldier  settlements.  Under  the  pro- 
visions of  the  act  the  governor  has  appointed  the  following  soldier-settlement 
commission :  Dr.  H.  A.  Morgan,  dean  of  the  agricultural  department,  University 
of  Tennessee;  F.  M.  Mcllee,  commissioner  of  agriculture;  Wilbur  A.  Nelson, 
State  geologist ;  W.  R.  Manier,  secretary  Nashville  Commercial  Club ;  George  N. 
Welch,  railroad  commissioner. 

It  is  understood  that  the  legislature  passed  a  joint  resolution  memorializing 
Congress  in  favor  of  soldier-settlement  legislation. 

Texas. 

The  legislature  enacted  a  bill  referring  to  the  people  a  constitutional  amend- 
ment so  that  the  State  may  lend  its  credit  for  land  and  settlement  purposes. 
This  amendment  was  voted  upon  favorably  May  24,  1919.  The  attorney  general 
is  preparing  a  measure  for  State  and  Federal  cooperation. 

It  is  understood  that  a  joint  resolution  has  been  passed  by  the  legislature 
memorializing  Congress  in  favor  of  soldier-settlement  legislation. 

The  following  committee  has  been  appointed  by  the  governor  to  represent  the 
State  in  soldier-settlement  matters:  Stewart  R.  Smith,  chairman,  Beaumont; 
J.  -H.  Haile,  vice  chairman,  San  Antonio ;  R.  H.  Spencer,  secretary,  Houston ; 
Senator  A.  C.  Buchanan,  Temple;  Senator  F.  M.  Givson,  Bonham. 

Utah. 

The  legislature  enacted  a  bill  (S.  B.  No.  79),  approved  March  17,  1919,  pro- 
viding for  cooperation  with  the  United  States  in  soldier  settlements  and  appro- 
priating $25,000. 

The  legislature  also  enacted  a  bill  (S.  B.  No.  80),  approved  March  17,  1919, 
providing  for  a  bond  issue  of  $1,000,000,  the  proceeds  of  which  are  to  be  covered 
into  the  soldier-settlement  fund. 

The  governor  has  appointed  the  following  soldier-settlement  commission: 
W.  R.  Wallace,  chairman,  Salt  Lake  City;  George  McGonagle,  State  engineer; 
Dr.  E.  G.  Peterson,  president  Utah  Agricultural  College,  Logan. 

Vermont. 

The  general  assembly  enacted  a  bill  (No.  15),  approved  March  26,  1919,  in 
which  it  is  provided  that  "the  commissioner  of  agriculture  is  authorized  and 
directed  to  confer  with  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  for  the  purpose  of  securing 
the  assistance  of  the  Federal  Government  in  placing  returned  soldiers  on  farms 
in  this  State,  and  he  shall  obtain  for  the  State  its  proper  share  of  any  appro- 
priation made  by  Congress  to  assist  such  returned  soldiers  to  engage  in  the 
farming  industry." 

Virginia. 

Tin-  governor  lias  appointed  the  following  committee  to  represent  the  Stale  in 
solilicr-setl.lement  matters:  T.  W.  ('"an-ingion.  ch;iinn;m,  Richmond;  John  C. 
Easley,  Richmond;  Oliver  J.  Sands,  Richmond;  I.  Walke  Truxton.  Norfolk; 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS.  13 

Tench  F.  Tilghman,  Norfolk;  A.  B.  Schwarzkopf,  Norfolk;  Walter  Edward 
Harris,  Petersburg;  D.  S.  Jones,  Newport  News;  Lee  Long,  Dante;  J.  William 
Ridley,  Courtland;  ,T.  E.  Nottingham,  jr.,  Franktown ;  A.  T.  Moore,  Staunton ; 
A.  E.  Anderson,  Bristol ;  John  F.  Kolar,  Disputanta ;  W.  R.  Warren,  Bacons 
Castle. 

Washington. 

The  legislature  enacted  a  bill  (H.  B.  200),  approved  March  18,  1919,  known 
as  the  State  reclamation  act.  creating  a  State  reclamation  revolving  fund  to 
eventually  attain  a  total  of  $5,000,000,  and  appropriting  $1,050,000. 

The  legislature  also  enacted  a  bill  (S.  B.  184),  approved  March  20.  1919, 
known  as  the  land-settlement  act,  providing  for  cooperation  with  the  United 
States  in  soldier  settlements,  and  making  an  appropriation  of  $150,000  from  the 
State  reclamation  revolving  fund  and  $10,000  from  the  general  fund. 

West  Virginia. 

A  bill  was  introduced  in  the  legislature  providing  for  cooperation  with  the 
United  States  in  soldier  settlements,  but  no  action  was  taken  on  it. 

The  legislature  passed  a  resolution  memorializing  Congress  in  favor  of  the 
enactment  of  soldier-settlement  legislation. 

The  governor  has  appointed  the  following  commission  to  represent  the  State 
in  soldier-settlement  matters:  J.  B.  McLaughlin,  Strange  Creek;  Merrett  Wil- 
son, Elkins;  Howard  Gore,  Clarksburg. 

Wisconsin. 

The  governor  has  appointed  a  State-wide  committee  to  act  in  soldier-settle- 
ment and  reclamation  matters,  affiliated  with  the  Lake  States  committee  rep- 
resenting Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  and  Michigan. 

On  February  23,  1918,  the  legislature  passed  a  joint  resolution  (S.  No.  8) 
appointing  a  commission  to  report  "  a  comprehensive  social  and  economic  wel- 
fare program  of  reconstruction  after  the  war  to  include  civilians  whose  status 
has  been  affected  by  the  war  as  well  as  soldiers."  In  the  report  of  the  commis- 
sion on  February  5,  1919,  it  is  recommended  that  hearty  cooperation  be  given 
the  effort  "  now  being  made  by  the  Federal  Government  to  establish  a  national 
land-settlement  policy." 

The  following  bills  have  been  introduced :  S.  No.  184,  providing  for  coopera- 
tion with  the  United  States  in  soldier  settlements;  S.  No.  294,  providing  for  a 
colonization  board  for  the  development  and  settlement  of  land;  S.  No.  459, 
providing  for  a  land-settlement  board  for  the  development  and  settlement  of 
land ;  A.  No.  614,  providing  for  a  land-settlement  board  for  the  development  and 
settlement  of  land. 

Wyoming. 

The  legislature  enacted  a  bill  (S.  No.  70),  approved  February  28,  1919,  pro- 
viding for  cooperation  with  the  United  States  in  soldier  settlements,  appropriat- 
ing $5,000,  and  authorizing  the  land-settlement  board  to  loan  not  to  exceed 
$200,000  from  the  State  school  funds  to  bona  fide  settlers  for  essential  farm  im- 
provements. The  land-settlement  board  is  composed  of  the  governor,  the  State 
treasurer,  and  the  secretary  of  State. 

EXHIBIT  C. 

MICHIGAN     LAND-SETTLEMENT    COMMISSION. 

The  plan  of  Secretary  Lane  strikes  right  at  the  very  vitals  of  the  principal 
causes  of  the  movement  from  the  country  to  the  cities,  when  it  is  proposed 
to  set  up  "  community  centers "  in  which  the  social  and  educational  ad- 
vantages shall  be  of  first  consideration.  Efficient  and  economical  crop  pro- 
duction, coupled  with  improved  market  facilities  are,  of  course,  prime  elements 
and  are  specifically  covered  in  the  general  plan.  In  other  words,  folks  have 
left  the  farm  because  their  net  earnings  were  less  than  obtained  in  the  city 
and  because  the  rural  social  and  educational  advantages  have  been  vastly 
less  appealing  than  in  towns.  Scientific  group  settlement  will  go  a  long  way 
in  correcting  these  conditions. 


14  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

THE    AMERICAN    FEDERATION    OF    LABOR. 

The  American  Federation  of  Labor  makes  the  following  recommendation 
in  its  reconstruction  program : 

Legislation  also  should  be  enacted  which  will  give  the  Nation's  defenders 
the  opportunity  for  easy  and  ready  access  to  the  land.  Favorable  induce- 
ments should  be  provided  for  them  to  enter  agriculture  and  husbandry.  The 
Government  should  assume  the  responsibility  for  the  allotment  of  such  lands, 
and  supply  the  necessary  capital  for  its  development  and  cultivation,  with 
such  safeguards  as  will  protect  both  the  Government  and  the  discharged  soldier 
and  sailor. 

THE    KEBN    COUNTY    SERVICE    MEN'S    ASSOCIATION. 

A  letter  from  this  association  is  as  follows : 

We  inclose  herewith  a  petition  which  was  drawn  up  and  circulated  by  this 
organization,  and  to  which  are  affixed  300  signatures. 

By  this  petition  we  aim  to  express  our  willingness  to  accept  the  opportuni- 
ties that  will  be  presented  to  service  men  when  the  Lane  land-settlement  bill 
is  passed. 

In  addition  to  these  signatures,  our  organization  has  circulated  250  of  the 
card  applications  issued  by  the  Department  of  the  Interior,  which  were  for- 
warded to  us  at  our  request.  We  understand  these  cards  are  being  tilled 
out  and  returned  to  your  department. 

The  Kern  County  Service  Men's  Association,  representing  Kern  County's 
former  service  men,  would  be  appreciative  of  any  information  or  advice  with 
which  you  might  wish  to  favor  us  in  connection  with  the  proposed  land-settle- 
ment act. 

The  petition  is  as  follows: 

"  The  undersigned,  each  of  whom  was  inducted  into  the  United  States 
service  and  who  holds  certificate  of  honorable  discharge  therefrom,  the  re- 
spective dates  of  which  appear  following  our  respective  names,  together  with 
our  respective  ages  and  whether  single  or  married,  hereby  declare  our  desire 
to  secure  the  soldiers'  homestead  privilege  and  elect  to  exercise  such  privilege 
on  unoccupied,  idle,  undeveloped,  and  unreclaimed  lands  in  Kern  Delta, 
Kern  County,  Calif.,  which  said  lands,  however,  we  are  advised,  are  in  private 
ownership  and  we  respectfully  seek  the  privilege  of  selecting  a  body  of  land 
as  nearly  as  may  be  in  compact  area  and  in  sufficient  area  to  enable  allot- 
ment of  60  acres  to  each  applicant,  the  price  and  terms  of  purchase  to  be 
fixed  by  the  State,  on  a  basis  that  will  enable,  with  intelligent  and  industrious 
application,  the  acquisition  of  title  within  a  reasonable  time  and  a  substantial 
livelihood  from  the  beginning. 

"  We  further  express  our  desire  and  willingness  to  join  the  State  and  Federal 
authorities  on  a  reasonable  wage  basis,  pending  reclamation,  to  construct  and 
install  the  necessary  irrigating  canals  and  other  water-supply  facilities,  drain- 
age facilities  where  required,  installation  of  electrical  service  agencies,  build- 
ing of  permanent  roads  to  trade  centers,  and  the  doing  of  such  other  work 
in  the  premises  as  the  Government  policy  may  require,  prior  to  allotment. 

"  We  further  signify  our  desire  to  secure  a  range  homestead  from  the  public 
lands  of  the  United  States  to  be  operated  in  connection  with  the  valley 
holding." 

(Names  of  300  signers  to  the  petition.) 

THE  WASHINGTON  COMMITTEE,  AGRICULTURAL  SECTION,  DIVISION  OF  TRAFFIC,  1TNITED 
STATES    RAILROAD    ADMINISTRATION. 

This  committee  heartily  indorses  the  plans  as  suggested  by  Secretary  Lane  for 
the  purpose  of  furnishing  occupation  to  the  returning  soldiers  and  for  the 
preparation  by  reclamation  or  otherwise  of  farms  or  ranches  to  be  sold  to 
soldiers  and  selected  settlers  upon  the  most  favorable  terms  and  conditions. 
Resolution  carried. 

THE   OREGON   COMMITTEE   OF   THE    SAME   ORGANIZATION. 

Resolved,  That  this  committee  desires  to  indorse  and  offer  its  cooperation 
to  the  plans  as  suggested  by  Secretary  Lane  for  the  preparation  of  homos 
for  the  returning  soldiers  by  means  of  reclamation  or  other  methods  of  de- 
velopment and  further  indorses  those  portions  of  Secretary  Lane's  plans  which 


HOMES  FOB  SOLDIERS.  15 

offer  an  opportunity  for  the  employment  of  returned  soldiers  in  the  develop- 
ment of  these  reclamation  or  other  projects  fostered  by  the  Government  for 
the  purpose  of  preparing  the  land  for  such  use.  That  this  committee  further 
approves  the  ideas  of  Secretary  Lane  that  any  homes  prepared  by  the  National 
or  State  Governments  shall  be  sold  to  these  returned  soldiers  and  other  selected 
settlers  upon  the  most  favorable  terms  and  conditions. 

BOISE  COUNCIL  NO.   899,  KNIGHTS  OF  COLUMBUS. 

Whereas  it  is  fit  and  becoming  that  a  grateful  Nation,  looking  to  the  welfare 
of  its  returning  heroes  from  the  field,  the  camp,  and  the  high  seas,  should 
provide  in  a  substantial  manner  for  the  recognition  of  the  noble  services 
or  our  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines :  Therefore,  be  it 

Resolved,  (1)  That  it  is  the  sentiment  of  Boise  Council  No.  899,  Knights  of 
Columbus,  that  there  is  no  more  fitting  and  appropriate  way  of  achieving  this 
most  meritorious  result  than  to  follow  the  suggestions  of  the  Hon.  Franklin 
K.  Lane,  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  in  the  reclamation  of  the  arid  lands  of 
southern  Idaho  and  the  logged-over  lands  of  northern  Idaho,  for  settlement 
and  ultimate  acquisition  by  our  returning  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines,  upon 
such  terms  and  conditions  as  will  enable  them  to  reclaim  and  bring  to  a  high 
state  of  cultivation  the  lands  thus  settled  upon,  without  exacting  conditions 
that  would  deter  the  ordinarily  prudent  man  from  assuming  the  obligations 
incident  to  settlement  on  those  lands. 

(2)  That  it  is  our  opinion  that  no  more  suitable  lands  can  be  obtained  than 
the  potentially  productive  lands  of  southern  Idaho  and  the  rich  logged-over 
lands  of  northern-  Idaho  to  bring  about  the  greatest  and  most  beneficial  results 
to  returning  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  to  the  State  of  Idaho  and  to  the 
United  States  of  America. 

(3)  That  we  indorse  the  proposal  that  all  work  incidental  to  the  reclama- 
tion of  these  lands  wherein  man   power  is  required  be  allotted   to  soldier, 
sailor,  and  marine  applicants  for  land  and  to  men  who  may  be  displaced  from 
their  usual  occupations  in  civil  life  by  the  preferential  employment  of  former 
soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines. 

(4)  That  we  believe  that  the  reclamation  of  the  arid  and  logged-over  lands 
of  Idaho  under  the  wise  and  careful  administration  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  will  not  only  relieve  the  situation  with  respect  to  employment,  but 
the  development  of  these  large  areas  of  land  will  contribute  to  national  pros- 
perity and  the  beneficial  influence  thereof  will  be  felt  by  all  the  people  of  the 
United  States. 

(5)  That  a  copy  of  these  resolutions  be  sent  to  the  honorable  Secretary  of 
the  Interior,  to  both  Houses  of  Congress,  and  to  each  member  of  the  Idaho 
delegation  in  the  House  of  Representatives  and  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. 

ARIZONA     CATTLE    GROWERS'     ASSOCIATION,     PHOENIX,     ABIZ. 

Whereas  the  Arizona  Cattle  Growers'  Association  desires  the  largest  possible 
extension  of  the  irrigated  area  of  Arizona  and  the  full  conservation  and  utiliza- 
tion of  all  the  water  resources  of  the  State,  both  surface  and  underground,  in- 
cluding the  complete  control  of  flood  waters,  and  the  protection  of  farms  and 
grazing  lands  from  soil  wash  and  erosion,  and  the  channels  of  rivers  and 
canals  from  the  silt  resulting  from  farm-land  destruction  :  Therefore  be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  Arizona  Cattle  Growers'  Association  in  convention  as- 
sembled at  Phoenix,  Ariz.,  February  11,  12,  and  13,  1919.  heartily  indorses  the 
plans  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  for  the  reclamation  of  large  areas  if  land 
in  Arizona  for  settlement  by  returned  soldiers,  sailors,  and  war  workers,  as  well 
MS  1>\  others  who  may  desire  to  settle  upon  such  reclaimed  lands,  and  urges  that 
the  appropriations  recommended  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  for  that 
purpose  should  be  made  without  delay ;  and  be  it  further 

Ifcxfilrcil.  That  this  association  urges  the  appointment  of  the  commission 
created  by  the  Newlands  river  regulation  amendment  enacted  by  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  in  August  17,  1917,  and  the  immediate  preparation  by  and 
through  such  commission  of  a  comprehensive  plan  for  flood  control  and  river 
regulations  on  every  watershed  in  Arizona ;  and  be  it  further 

Resolved,  That  this  association  urges  the  construction,  without  delay,  of  the 
Upper  Gila,  San  Carlos,  Camp  Verde,  Horseshoe,  Charleston,  Sentinel,  and 
Parjker  Reservoirs,  and  all  other  practicable  irrigation  projects  and  reser- 
voirs for  flood-water  storage  in  Arizona  to  the  end  that  the  benefits  to  the  manu- 


16  HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS. 

facturing  industries  of  the  United  States  resulting  from  the  work  of  the 
Reclamation  Service  may  be  extended  at  this  time  to  the  fullest  possible  extent, 
to  create  employment  for  labor  and  home  markets  for  manufacturers,  and 
thereby  check  the  tendency  to  disemployment  and  business  depression  resulting 
from  the  cessation  of  war  industries ;  and  be  it  further 

Resolved,  That  in  the  selection  of  lands  for  soldiers,  sailors,  and  war  workers 
we  believe  the  State  land  commission  should  safeguard  the  rights  of  those  who 
have  served  the  Nation,  assist  them  in  the  selection  of  desirable  lands,  and 
enable  them  to  locate  on  such  lands  without  being  subject  to  unnecessary 
expense. 

THE  NATIONAL  SERVICE  LEGION,  NEW  YORK. 

Resolved,  That  the  National  Service  Legion  indorse  the  reclamation  project 
("land  for  the  soldiers")  adopted  by  the  Department  of  the  Interior  and, 
furthermore,  that  the  speaking  staff  of  the  legion  be  placed  at  the  disposal  of 
the  Government  to  assist  in  procuring  a  successful  outcome  of  the  proposed 
plans. 

THE   KNCJINKKKS'    CT.rH    OF    HALTIMOItK. 

Whereas  information  from  reliable  sources  indicate  that  there  are  now  out  of 
employment  in  the  United  States  about  r>(M).<HK)  workers,  many  of  whom  have 
but  recently  laid  aside  the  uniform  of  their  country:  and 

Whereas  competent  students  of  social  and  economic  conditions  inform  us 
that  the  country  is  in  great  need  of  the  addition  of  a  million  homes  owned  by 
the  occupants,  to  insure  us  properly  against  the  evils  of  social  unrest;  and 

Whereas  the  growth  of  population  in  the  United  States  is  greatly  exceeding 
in  celerity  the  growth  in  the  production  of  agricultural  crops:  and 

Whereas  the  men  who  have  borne  the  arms  of  the  United  States  are  par- 
ticularly entitled  to  receive  at  the  hands  of  a  grateful  country  every  reasonable 
opportunity  for  advancement  that  may  properly  lie  extended  to  them;  and 

Whreas  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  Hon.  Franklin  K.  Lane,  has  proposed 
a  plan  to  provide  both  employment  and  farm  homes  for  soldiers,  sailors,  and 
marines,  through  the  reclamation  by  and  for  them  of  undeveloped  lands  through- 
out the  country  and  the  division  of  such  lands  into  communities  of  farm  homes 
fully  improved  with  fences  and  buildings,  and  equipped  with  stock  and  farm 
implements,  for  immediate  use,  the  cost  of  which  shall  be  returned  to  the  United 
States  in  small  payments  over  a  term  of  years;  and 

Whereas  this  plan  received  the  approval  of  Woodrow  Wilson,  President  of 
the  United  States,  in  his  message  to  Congress,  December  2,  1918,  and  of  Theo- 
dore Roosevelt,  in  his  article  "  Eyes  to  the  Front."  appearing  in  the  February, 
1919,  number  of  the  Metropolitan  Magazine,  as  well  as  that  of  thousands  of 
other  thoughful  citizens  from  all  parts  of  the  land ;  and 

Whereas  there  is  pending  before  Congress  a  bill  (H.  R.  13651)  providing  for 
an  appropriation  of  $100,000.000  to  put  this  plan  into  effect:  Now,  therefore, 
be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  Engineers'  Club  of  Baltimore,  Md.,  hereby  expresses  its 
earnest  approval  of  the  plan  of  Secretary  Lane,  and  urges  the  passage  of  the 
bill  above  referred  to ;  and,  furthermore,  be  it 

Resolved,  That  we  call  upon  our  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress 
from  the  State  of  Maryland  to  do  all  in  their  power  to  further  the  passage  of 
said  bill  and  its  enactment  into  law. 

CONFERENCE  OF   SOUTHWESTERN    STATES. 

At  a  conference  called  by  the  Hon.  Simon  Bamberger,  governor  of  the  State 
of  Utah,  to  meet  at  Salt  Lake  City.  Utah,  on  the  18th  day  of  January,  1919.  for 
the  consideration  of  plans  for  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines'  settlement  along 
the  lines  suggested  by  Hon.  Franklin  K.  Lane,  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  the 
States  of  California,  Arizona,  Nevada,  New  Mexico,  Colorado,  Wyoming,  and 
Utah  were  represented  by  delegates  duly  appointed  by  the  governors  of  said 
States. 

The  conference  met,  pursuant  to  call  at  the  Utah  State  capitol,  and  as  a  result 
of  its  deliberations  adopted  the  following  resolution : 

"  Whereas  the  world  is  just  emerging  from  the  greatest  war  in  history  ;  and 

•' W7hereas  it  is  of  prime  importance  to  the  people  of  tin  United  States  that 
the  returning  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  of  the  country  be  given  profitable 
employment,  with  the  opportunity  to  acquire  homes  throughout  the  I'nitcd 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  17 

Slates  upon  lands  'which  it  is  possible  to  reclaim  by  the  concerted  action  of  the 
Federal  Government  and  the  varoius  States  of  the  Union;  and 

"Whereas  the  Hon.  Franklin  K.  Lane,  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  has  sug- 
gested  tin-  cooperation  of  the  United  States  with  the  various  States  looking  to 
the  reclamation,  redemption,  and  improvement  of  lands  throughout  the  United 
.States  and  the  settlement  thereon  of  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  under  terms 
which  should  prove  attractive  to  them:  Now,  therefore,  be  it 

/!<  xolred.  That  this  conference  heartily  approves  the  general  principles  sug- 
gested by  Secretary  Lane  and  urges  upon  the  legislatures  of  the  various  States 
of  the  Union  and  upon  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  immediate  action 
looking  to  the  crystallization  in  the  form  of  laws  of  such  provisions  as  will  make 
possible  at  the  earliest  moment  the  furnishing  of  employment  to  the  soldiers  and 
sailors  of  the  country  on  projects  looking  to  the  reclamation  of  all  such  lands  as 
may  be  made  productive  by  the  construction  of  irrigation  works,  the  drainage 
of  swamp  lands,  and  the  clearing  of  cut-over  timberlands,  with  a  view  of  placing 
upon  such  lands  such  soldiers,  sailors,  marines,  and  citizens  as  may  desire  to 
avail  themselves  of  the  opportunity  so  offered." 

In  this  connection  we  call  attention  to  the  experience  of  our  country  in 
various  completed  reclamation  projects  throughout  the  land  and  point  out  "that 
it  is  not  sufficient  merely  to  place  the  men  upon  the  land.  We  therefore 
urge  upon  those  in  authority  that  lands  which  may  be  reclaimed  by  any  of  the 
methods  above  suggested  should  be  brought  to  a  point  where  the  settler  going 
upon  them  can  immediately  enter  upon  actual  farming  with  a  promise  of  results 
at  the  end  of  the  first  season  of  his  occupancy.  He  should  be  offered  lands 
ready  to  plant  and  equipped  with  the  necessary  buildings,  implements,  and 
live  stock  to  make  it  a  going  concern,  all  of  these  to  be  paid  for  on  long-time 
deferred  payments  bearing  a  low  rate  of  interest. 

As  representing  States  lying  within  the  arid  region  of  the  West  we  call  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  in  su<;h  region  there  are  vast  areas  of  land  which  only 
need  the  application  of  available  water  to  make  them  productive  and  capable  of 
supporting  hundreds  of  thousands  of  inhabitants.  As  an-  illustration  of  this 
condition  we  call  attention  to  the  great  drainage  basin  of  the  Colorado  River, 
in  which  there  are  in  excess  of, 3,000,000  acres  which  can  be  reclaimed  by  the 
construction  of  reservoirs  for  the  conservation  of  the  flood  waters  of  the  stream, 
which  would  do  away  with  flood  damages  on  the  lower  reaches  of  the  river 
and  bring  into  productivity  an  empire  which  in  its  richness  would  rival  the 
lands  of  the  far-famed  Delta  of  the  Nile,  an  empire  which  when  fully  developed 
would  add  to  the  wealth  of  the  country  by  a  variety  of  crops  ranging  from 
those  of  the  North  Temperate  Zone  to  those  semitropical  products  of  Arizona 
and  California. 

In  the  treatment  of  projects  such  as  are  to  be  found  on  the  Colorado  River 
and  its  tributaries,  those  in  authority  should  bear  in  mind  that  the  stream 
should  be  treated  as  a  whole  in  order  that  the  greatest  duty  of  its  waters  will 
be  obtained.  The  history  of  irrigation  throughout  the  world  has  shown  that 
the  greatest  duty  of  water  is  had  by  first  using  it  upon  the  upper  reaches  of  the 
.stream  and  continuing  the  use  progressively  downward.  In  other  words,  "  the 
water  should  first  be  captured  and  used  while  it  is  young,"  for  it  can  then  be 
recaptured  as  it  returns  from  the  performance  of  its  duties  and  thus  be  used 
over  and  over  again.  Attention  is  further  directed  to  the  fact  that  many  of 
these  irrigation,  projects,  of  a  magnitude  to  be  developed  only  by  the  Federal 
Government,  can  be  properly  carried  on  without  interfering  with  smaller  de- 
velopments which  should  be  undertaken  by  individual  and  corporate  initiative, 
and  we  therefore  urge  upon  the  Interior  and  Agricultural  Departments  the 
adoption,  of  a  liberal  and  sympathetic  policy  in  the  granting  of  rights  of  way 
for  reservoirs  and  ditches  upon  the  public  domain  where  the  same  are  essential 
to  the  development  of  such  private  projects.  We  further  urge  the  liberal  ad- 
ministration of  all  of  the  land  laws  of  the  United  States,  looking  to  the  end 
of  placing  the  lands  of  the  United  States  in  the  actual  possession  and  occupa- 
tion of  its  citizens  in  order  that  the  citizens  may  have  a  home  and  that  the 
lands  may  go  upon  the  tax  rolls  of  the  various  States  in  which  they  may  be 
located  in  order  that  they  may  bear  their  just  proportion  of  the  expense  of 
State  administration. 

Along  the  lines  set  forth  in  these  resolutions  we  pledge  ourselves  to  a  hearty 
cooperation  with  the  representatives  of  the  Federal  Government  in  order  that 
the  desired  end  may  be  attained  at  the  earliest  possible  moment  consistent  with 
a  wise  administration  of  the  affairs  of  the  Nation  and  of  the  States. 

133319—19 .r>'2 


18  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

While  the  States  here  represented  are  but  slightly  concerned  in  the  reclama- 
tion of  swamp  lands  or  cut-over  timberlands,  we  express  our  hearty  approval 
of  legislation  looking  to  the  redemption  and  proper  utilization  of  such  lands, 
for  it  is  to  the  home-owning  class  that  our  country  must  look  for  the  preser- 
vation of  our  traditions  and  our  institutions. 

In  the  carrying  out  of  all  reclamation  projects  in  which  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment may  become  interested  its  activities  should  ever  be  in  conformity  with 
the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  the  project  under  development  is  located.  In 
the  arid  States  of  the  West  the  irrigation  projects  undertaken  by  or  with  the 
aid  of  the  Federal  Government  should  in  every  instance  be  based  upon  a  full 
compliance  with  the  laws  of  the  State  wherein  the  projects  are  located  so  far 
as  the  appropriation  of  water  and  other  matters  of  purely  State  control  are 
concerned. 

WILLIAM  SPRY,  Chairman. 
OTIS  J.  BAUGH.N.  Secret  nnj. 

SUPPLEMENTAL  STATEMENT  REGARDING  RESOI.TTIONS  OF  DIFFKIJENT  ORGANIZATIONS 
REGARDING  SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT. 

GENERAL  FEDERATION  OF  WOMENS'  CLUBS, 

TEXAS  FEDERATION  OF  WOMEN'S  CLUBS, 

May  1.',.  1919. 

Farms  for  soldiers. 

Whereas  we  believe  in  the  project  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  Franklin 
K.  Lane,  to  give  to  honorably  discharged  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  the 
opportunity  to  own  land  upon  which  he  may  live  and  make  a  living:  There- 
fore be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  —  —  district  of  the  Texas  Federation  of  Women's 
Clubs  pledges  its  support  to  Secretary  Lane  in  furthering  the  "Farms  for 
Soldiers "  project,  and  we  urge  that  in  the  plans  for  the  community  center 
and  for  the  homes  on  the  farm  careful  attention  be  given  to  the  needs  of  the 
women,  that  their  surroundings  may  be  conducive  to  happiness  and  con- 
tentment. 

OMAHA  WOMAN'S  CLUB. 

Mil)/  8,   1919. 
Farms  for  soldiers. 

Whereas  we  believe  in  the  project  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  Franklin 
K  Lane,  to  give  to  honorably  discharged  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  the 
opportunity  to  own  land  upon  which  they  may  live  and  make  a  living:  There- 
fore be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  second  district  of  the  Oklahoma  Federation  of  Women's 
Clubs  pledges  its  support  to  Secretary  Lane  in  furthering  the  "  Farms  for 
Soldiers"  project,  and  we  urge  that  in  the  plans  for  the  community  center 
and  for  the  homes  on  the  farm  careful  attention  be  given  to  the  needs  of  the 
women,  that  their  surroundings  may  be  conducive  to  happiness  and  content. 

DAUGHTERS    OF    THE    AMERICAN    REVOLUTION. 

The  Daughters  of  the  American  Revolution  at  their  Twenty-eighth  Conti- 
nental Congress  of  the  national  society  passed  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  Daughters  of  the  American  Revolution  proffer  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  their  hearty  cooperation  in  and  their  cordial  approval 
of  his  efforts  toward  the  promotion  of  Americanization  and  the  eradication 
of  illiteracy,  and  that  we  urge  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  to  enact 
legislation  which  will  permit  these  problems  to  be  undertaken  in  a  way  which 
their  importance  to  the  future  of  the  country  demands;  and  be  it  further 

Resolved,  That  an  authenticated  copy  of  the  foregoing  resolution  be  trans- 
mitted to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  ;uid 
the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States. 

Whereas  of  our  great  Army  of  patriotic  sons  now  being  rapidly  demobilized 
many  are  unable  to  secure  the  employment  necessary  for  them  to  make  needed 
provision  for  themselves  and  their  families;  and 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  19 

Whereas  the  safety  and  well-being  of  our  country  rests  in  great  measure 
upon  the  stability  of  the  home,  which  in  turn  depends  largely  upon  ownership 
of  the  home  by  the  occupant;  and 

Whereas  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  Hon.  Franklin  K.  Lane,  has  proposed 
a  program  to  provide  both  work  and  homes  for  our  fighting  boys  by  reclaim- 
ing undeveloped  lands,  dividing  these  lands  into  projects  of  farm  homes,  and 
permitting  the  soldiers  to  secure  these  homes  by  paying  the  actual  cost  in 
easy  payments  over  a  period  of  40  years ;  and 

Whereas  more  than  30,000  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  have  already 
written  to  the  Department  of  the  Interior  asking  for  the  privilege  of  taking 
advantage  of  Secretary  Lane's  plan  :  and 

AVhereas  this  plan  has  received  widespread  approval  from  economists  and 
patriots  throughout  the  country,  including  the  President  of  the  United  Statas 
and  the  late  Col.  Theodore  Roosevelt ;  and 

Whereas  the  United  States  is  now  the  only  large  country  among  the  Allies 
that  has  not  made  provision  to  meet  the  demand  of  the  troops  for  farm 
homes :  and 

Whereas  a  bill  providing  an  appropriation  to  carry  this  plan  into  effect 
\\;is  reported  favorably  out  of  a  committee  in  each  House  of  the  Sixty-fifth 
Congress,  but  failed  to  Ue  reached  for  consideration :  Now,  therefore,  be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  Daughters  of  the  American  Revolution,  in  annual  con- 
vention assembled,  in  the  city  of  Washington,  D.  C.,  hereby  approve  the  plan 
of  Secretary  Lane  and  urge  the  special  session  of  Congress  soon  to  be  convened 
speedily  to  pass  a  bill  under  which  it  may  put  into  effect,  without  delay;  and 
be  it  further 

Resolved,  That  an  authenticated  copy  of  the  foregoing  resolution  be  trans- 
mitted to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  and 
the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States. 

NATIONAL  EDUCATION  ASSOCIATION, 

May  9,  1919. 

The  deparment  of  superintendence  of  the  National  Education  Association  in- 
dorses the  bill  now  pending  before  Congress  appropriating  $100,000,000  with 
which  to  provide  work  and  homes  for  our  soldier  boys. 

THE  NEW  JERSEY  STATE  COUNCIL  OF  DEFENSE, 

May  7,  1919. 

Be  it  resolved  by  the  executive  committee  of  the  Neto  Jersey  Council  of  De- 
fense, That  the  proposal  of  Franklin  K.  Lane,  Secretary  of  the  Interior  of  the 
United  States,  to  procure  a  loan  from  the  United  States  Government  to  the 
amount  of  $100,000,000  for  land  development  for  returning  soldiers  and  sailors, 
by  creating  farms  through  the  reclamation  of  arid  lands  in  the  West,  the 
draining  of  swamp  lands  in  the  South,  and  the  clearing  of  lands  in  every  State 
where  possible,  is  hereby  approved  and  indorsed,  in  so  far  as  the  general  pur- 
poses and  general  provisions  of  such  plan  are  concerned,  by  the  said  executive 
committee  of  the  New  Jersey  State  Council  of  Defense ;  and 

Be  it  further  resolved,  That  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  be  petitioned 
to  enact  such  laws  and  appropriate  the  necessary  moneys  to  execute  such  plan, 
as  aforesaid,  for  the  purpose  of  reclaiming  such  lands  in  the  interest  of  sol- 
diers and  sailors  of  the  United  States  and  for  the  purpose  of  ultimately  pro- 
viding for  such  soldiers  and  sailors  homes  and  lands. 

Be  it  further  resolved,  That  a  copy  of  these  resolutions  be  forwarded  at 
once  to  Hon.  Franklin  K.  Lane,  Secretary  of  the  Interior  of  the  United  States, 
and  to  the  Senators  and  Representatives  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey  in  the 
<',,ni:ress  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

Passed  1>\  the  executive  committee  of  the  New  Jersey  State  Council  of  De- 
fense this  7th  day  of  May,  1919. 

JOHN  RECAN   POST  OF  WORLD  WAR  VETERANS, 

April  21.  1919. 
Resolution, 

Whereas  a  bill  was  introduced  in  the  Sixty-fifth  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  commonly  known  as  the  soldiers'  settlement  art.  or  the  L:me  Land  Bill, 
providing  for  the  reclamation  of  a  vast  acreage  of  arid,  cut-over,  and  swamp- 
lands in  the  United  States,  and  for  the  furnishing  of  homes  and  employment 


20  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIEES. 

for  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  who  served  in  the  Great  War;  and  whereas 
we  believe  that  the  greatest  question  confronting  the  United  States  during  the 
reconstruction  period  after  the  war  is  the  adequate  development  of  its  vast 
resources  and  the  furnishing  of  employment  for  the  many  citizens  whose  par- 
ticipation in  the  war  or  in  war  industries  threw  them  out  of  their  former  occu- 
pations and  employment  ;  and  whereas  the  said  soldiers'  settlement  act  failed 
to  pass  at  the  last  session  of  the  Sixty-fifth  Congress  : 

Now,  therefore,  be  it  resolved  by  the  John  Regan  Post  of  tlic  World  \V<ir 
Veterans  as  follows:  That  we  deeply  appreciate  the  efforts  of  the  Hon.  Franklin 
K.  Lane,  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  and  of  our  delegation  in  Congress  to  secure 
the  passage  of  such  bill  ;  that  we  are  heartily  in  favor  of  the  enactment  of 
such  legislation  as  will  assist  returning  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  in  the 
securing  of  rural  homes  and  suitable  employment  and  in  reclaiming  the 
5,000,000  acres  of  arid,  swamp,  and  cut-over  lands  in  the  State  of  Idaho,  \vliich 
can  be  reclaimed  at  a  reasonable  cost;  and  that  we  strongly  urge  our  Senators 
and  Representatives  at  the  next  session  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
to  devote  their  utmost  endeavors  to  securing  the  introduction  and  passage  of 
said  soldiers'  settlement  bill  or  similar  legislation. 

And  be  it  further  resolved,  That  copies  of  this  resolution  be  sent  to  the  Hon. 
Franklin  K.  Lane,  the  Hon.  William  E.  Borah,  the  Hon.  John  F.  Nugent,  the 
Hon.  Addison  T.  Smith,  and  the  Hon.  Burton  L.  French. 

The  caucus  of  the  American  Legion  at  St.  Louis  in  May,  1919.  unanimously 
indorsed  the  plan  for  providing  farms  for  returned  soldiers,  sailors,  and 
marines. 

EXHIBIT  D. 

[Department  of  the  Interior;  Franklin  K.  Lane,  Secretary.     U.  S.  Reclamation  Service  ; 
Arthur  P.  Davis,  Director.] 


OI.DIKK    SETTLEMENTS   IN    ENGLISH-SPEAKING    COUNTRIES. 

By  ELWOOD  MEAD,  Consulting  Engineer,  U.  S.  Reclamation  Service. 

Foreword.  —  The  following  summary  of  soldier-settlement  legislation  of  other 
countries  is  published  to  help  the  people  of  this  Nation  understand  and  deal 
with  one  of  the  reconstruction  problems  which  confronts  us.  The  laws  have 
special  value  because  in  most  countries  they  are  the  outgrowth  of  several 
years'  experience,  prior  to  the  war,  with  a  rural  development  under  which 
land  was  bought,  subdivided,  improved,  and  sold  to  settlers  on  long-time  pay- 
ments. Provision  for  soldier  settlement  required,  therefore,  only  the  broaden- 
ing of  a  system  of  laws  and  policies  already  in  operation. 

One  important  feature  of  these  laws  is  the  provision  for  cooperation  between 
the  Federal  and  State  authorities  in  Canada  and  Australia,  and,  generally 
speaking,  between  the  central  Government  and  the  local  authorities. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  Australia,  which  has  an  area  about  equal  to  the 
United  States,  has  a  comprehensive  scheme  for  cooperation  between  the 
Commonwealth  Government  and  the  several  State  governments,  under  which 
the  States  provide  the  land  and  the  Federal  Government  provides  the  money 
for  reclamation,  where  this  is  necessary,  and  for  financing  the  improvement 
and  equipment  for  farms.  Such  cooperation  makes  the  movement  truly 
national  because  it  enlists  all  sections  of  the  country  and  mobilizes  in  the 
service  of  soldiers  public  agencies  which  have  the  practical  and  technical 
knowledge  needed  to  secure  the  desired  results  with  the  least  effort,  money, 
and  time. 

It  is  believed  that  this  cooperation  should  be  the  outstanding  feature  of 
our  legislation.  If  the  movement  is  to  be  national  in  the  fullest  sense,  everj 
State  should  provide  opportunities  for  its  sons  and  should  contribute  to  the 
expense  and  share  in  the  direction  of  the  movement.  If  this  plan  is  followed, 
State  legislation  is  as  necessary  as  Federal  legislation  and  both  ought  to  be 
enacted  this  winter. 

It  is  hoped  the  facts  herein  stated  will  help  to  show  the  character  of  the 
legislation  required  and  the  extent  of  the  work  to  be  done  if  we  are  to  meet 
our  responsibilities  as  other.  English-speaking  countries  are  meeting  theirs. 

/.(•(/ixidtioii.  (Kimiiiixiriitioii.  dim  appropriations.  —  All  English-speaking  conn- 
tries'  except  the  United'  States  have  passed  special  soldier  settlement  legislation 
and  made  appropriations  therefor.  Where  good  free  land  exists  this  is  offered 
the  soldier,  but  even  when  such  exists  he  is  usually  given  assistance  in  the 


HOMES  FOB  SOLDIERS.  21 

individual  purchase  of  private  land,  or  such  private  land  is  purchased  by  the 
State  in  blocks.  In  countries  like  England,  New  Zealand,  Victoria,  and  New 
South  Wales  it  is  largely  a  question  of  resuming  land. 

When  land-settlement  boards  do  not  already  exist  they  have  had  to  be  cre- 
ated, except  in  the  case  of  Ontario  and  some  of  the  other  Canadian  Provinces, 
which  are  using  their  minister  of  lands,  their  agricultural,  and  forestry  de- 
partments for  this  purpose. 

Handling  applications  and  placing  soldiers  is  largely  decentralized  and  in 
the  hands  of  voluntary  local  committees. 

The  English  and  Canadian  method  of  settlement  is  to  establish  central  farms 
on  which  to  try  out  crops,  to  employ  and  train  settlers,  stock  them  with  ani- 
mals and  implements  for  the  use  of  the  settlers,  and  about  these  farms  to  lay 
out  farm  blocks  of  varying  dimensions.  The  Australian  plan  is  to  follow  the 
policy  of  closer  settlement  already  laid  down  and  so  successfully  prosecuted. 

Explicit  data  concerning  total  appropriations  are  not  available.  The  usual 
method  is  to  start  the  work  with  a  small  appropriation  and  to  add  to  it  as 
required.  In  the  case  of  Canadian  Provinces  and  the  Dominion,  funds  come 
from  an  appropriation  for  general  development,  probably  derived  from  taxa- 
tion ;  in  England  it  is  a  disbursement  from  the  treasury ;  in  New  Zealand  and 
Australia  the  funds  are  derived  wholly  from  the  sale  of  bonds  in  the  London 
market. 

Respect  in-  xplicres  of  State  and  Federal  action. — In  the  two  countries  where 
a  Federal  Government  exists,  namely,  Canada  and  Australia,  tentative  steps 
have  'been  taken  toward  working  out  a  cooperative  plan  the  general  nature  of 
which  is  for  the  general  Government  to  supply  the  funds  for  loan  advances 
and  for  the  States  to  supply  the  land  and  to  supervise  its  division,  and  maybe 
control.  A  general  board  has  been  appointed  in  each  case  and  on  which  each  of 
the  States  or  Provinces  is  represented.  Undoubtedly  when  the  period  of  de- 
mobilization approaches  this  plan  in  the  case  of  Canada  and  Australia  will  be 
carried  out  in  great  detail. 

Kind  and  amount  of  aid. — Aid  to  the  soldier  takes  a  variety  of  forms.  There 
are,  first,  the  allowances  which  are  given  a  soldier,  for  himself  and  family  in 
the  probationary  period  of  working  and  beginning  of  experience;  under  this 
head  might  be  mentioned  transportation,  which  all  of  the  countries  offer  the 
soldiers  when  they  are  traveling  to  training  stations  or  to  the  land ;  second, 
either  the  giving  of  land  or  the  pricing  it  to  the  soldier  at  the  cost  of  pur- 
chase and  subdivision ;  third,  the  supplying  of  advice,  guidance,  and  instruc- 
tions by  all  countries ;  fourth,  the  supply  of  grading,  farm  tools,  and  sometimes 
farm  animals  free  or  at  cost  (under  this  head  may  be  mentioned  the  supply 
of  seeds  and  fertilizers)  ;  fifth,  credit  advances  for  the  taking  up  of  mortgages 
and  incumbrauces,  for  clearing,  leveling,  and  ditching  of  lands,  for  erection 
of  fences,  buildings,  barns  and  houses,  for  the  building  of  homes;  sixth,  as- 
sistance in  the  organizations  of  cooperative  buying  and  selling  associations, 
and  the  giving  of  whatever  aid  the  State  Governments  ought  to  give  in  this 
direction. 

In  every  instance  the  payments  for  the  purchase  of  the  land  or  for  the  reim- 
bursement to  the  State  for  advances  are  stretched  over  a  long  period  of  time. 
The  period  of  payment  varies  from  20  years,  as  in  the  case  of  Ontario,  to  36$ 
years,  which  is  the  case  in  the  Australian  States.  Advances  for  stock  and 
developments  are  repayable  in  from  10  to  25  years.  The  interest  charged  is 
seldom  more  than  £  cent  more  than  the  interest  paid  on  public  securities. 

Types  of  land  tenure. — In  Canada  freehold  rights  prevail.  In  England  the 
perpetual  lease  predominates.  In  New  Zealand  both  the  lease  and  the  free- 
hold are  given.  In  Australia  some  of  the  States,  such  as  New  South  Wales, 
South  Australia,  and  Queensland,  do  not  give  a  freehold  title.  The  occupier 
pays  a  rent  of  about  1$  per  cent  of  the  capital  value  of  the  land  and  receives 
a  perpetual  lease,  which  is  inheritable  and,  under  certain  restrictions,  trans- 
ferable. The  other  States  offer  a  freehold  title  or  a  lease.  The  governments 
of  all  these  countries  are  not  inclined  to  part  with  their  grazing  lands  or  lands 
that  are  suitable  for  further  subdivisions.  They  are  usually  leased  for  short 
or  long  terms. 

In  nearly  all  cases,  while  the  soldier  is  not  legally  required  to  maintain  a 
residence,  he  can  not  lease  his  land  or  transfer  it  within  a  stated  period,  and 
he  can  not  meet  his  payments  on  the  advances  received  unless  he  is  giving  his 
whole  attention  to  his  land.  Residence,  therefore,  is  practically  assured. 

Selection  and  training  of  soldiers. — The  selection  of  soldiers  and  the  advice 
they  receive  is  largely  in  the  hands  of  local  committees  in  the  case  of  Canada, 


22  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

England,  and  Australia.  Such  local  committees  are  usually  expected  to  give 
their  advice  in  the  selection  of  lands  to  be  purchased  by  the  State. 

Some  training  of  the  soldier  in  agriculture,  and  some  practical  farm  ex- 
perience is  always  expected.  Such  training  and  experience  are  obtainable 
from  three  sources :  Employment  on  farms,  from  agricultural  colleges,  or  from 
farms  associated  with  the  colony  enterprise. 

Progress  of  soldier  settlements, — The  legislative  acts  in  all  countries  are 
practically  complete.  The  organization  for  the  administration  of  the  acts  is 
largely  completed.  Some  private  lands  have  been  purchased  and  public  lands 
set  aside  by  all  of  the  English-speaking  countries. 

It  is  not  possible  at  this  time  to  give  a  table  of  the  amount  of  land  so 
acquired. 

Note  on  the  cooperation  of  public  and  private  interest  in  land  settlement  for 

soldier*. 

European  countries,  in  contrast  to  English-speaking  countries,  where  State 
action  largely  prevails  in  land  settlement,  have  developed  a  policy  of  State 
cooperation  with  private  societies.  This  is  notably  true  in  the  cases  of  France, 
Holland,  Norway,  and  Sweden.  Private  societies  which  are  created  for  the 
building  of  houses,  purchase  of  acre  farms,  or  the  subdivision  of  large  estates 
usually  sell  their  securities  in  the  money  market,  realizing  very  small  margins 
of  profit,  but  also  supplementing  their  funds  by  those  received  from  the  State. 
They  also  derive  benefit  and  create  their  reserve  capital  by  means  of  share 
membership.  Even  if  they  depend  wholly  upon  State  funds  these  private 
societies  relieve  the  State  of  a  large  administration  expense. 

In  Sweden  there  are  three  classes  of  such  associations,  national,  provincial, 
and  local,  17  in  all.  These  associations  are  given  about  a  million  crowns  a 
year  for  their  several  purposes. 

The  real  estate  credit  societies  for  small  holdings  and  dwelling  houses  are 
composed  of  five  elements :  Private  individuals,  savings  banks,  public  benevolent 
institutions,  commissions  and  departments,  and  the  State.  They  are  aggrega- 
tions of  public  and  private  funds  devoted  to  a  social  purpose.  The  savings 
hanks  can  not  only  invest  in  these  societies,  but  it  is  of  greater  advantage  for 
them  than  to  loan  to  individuals.  The  commissions  and  departments  not  only 
take  bonds  and  shares  ;  they  guarantee  the  share  dividends,  but  also  the  interest. 
Through  the  various  agencies  a  society  with  25,000  francs  of  paid-up  capital 
may  make  advances  on  a  total  real  estate  value  of  625,000  frncs. 

These  agricultural  lending  societies  in  France  have  been  given  the  task  of 
purchasing  small  rural  properties  for  soldiers  and  civilian  victims  of  the  war 
in  a  law  signed  April  9  by  President  Poincare.  The  law  provides  in  part : 
"  Individual  mortgage  loans  to  facilitate  the  acquisition,  parceling  out,  trans- 
formation, and  reconstruction  of  small  rural  properties  of  which  the  value  does 
not  exceed  10,000  francs." 

GREAT  BRITAIN. 

Legislation  <ni<l  appropriation. — Thus  far  England  has  done  little  more  than 
experiment  with  land  settlement  for  the  soldier.  There  has  been  much 
agitation  and  legislation  for  small  holdings,  but  without  achieving  very 
satisfactory  results.  Since  the  beginning  of  the  operation  of  the  small  hold- 
ings act  (1911)  for  the  purchase  of  small  acreage  through  the  county  councils 
there  is  said  to  have  been  an  actual  decrease  of  5.500  holdings  of  50  acres 
or  under  in  England  and  Wales.  The  statement  has  also  been  made  that 
of  the  15,000  small  holders  who  rent  or  have  purchased  through  the  councils 
only  774  have  had  newly  equipped  farms ;  the  remainder  have  had  to  shift 
for  themselves.  This  result  is  not  promising,  considering  the  fact  that 
£5,250,000  has  been  advanced  to  the  councils  out  of  public  funds  for  the  pur- 
chase and  adaptation.  For  the  councils  it  may  be  said  their  advances  are 
being  repaid,  and  their  losses  are  negligible.  The  councils  have  not  used 
the  credit,  banking,  cooperative  transit,  and  market  facility  clause  of  the  act. 
They  have  insisted  that  the  applicant  have  a  capital  of  at  least  £5  per  acre 
of  land  leased  or  purchased.  This  requirement  has  eliminated  most  laborers. 
Although  the  Board  of  Agriculture  has  the  authority  to  go  forward  with  the 
development  of  small  holdings  if  the  council  in  question  does  not  act,  the 
Soldiers  and  Sailors  Land  Committee  of  the  Board  of  Agriculture  has 
decided  that  settlements  of  soldiers  under  this  act  is  not  feasible.  The 
failure  in  the  main  seems  to  be  due  to  the  lethargy  of  the  councils. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  23 

By  act  of  Parliament  (6  and  7  Geo.  V,  38)  the  Board  of  Agriculture  and 
Fisheries  is  enabled  to  acquire  land  for  a  small  number  of  experimental  hold- 
ings. Four  of  such  areas  for  subdivision,  comprising  6,000  acres,  the  maxi- 
mum permitted  under  the  act,  have  been  purchased  or  leased,  three  in 
England  and  one  in  Wales.  These  will  be  described  later.  Recently  a  bill 
has  been  introduced  in  British  Parliament  authorizing  the  purchase  of  60,000 
acres  of  land  in  England  and  20.000  acres  of  land  in  Scotland  to  provide  homes 
for  returning  soldiers.  This  is  ten  times  the  area  originally  authorized  to  be 
bought.  In  addition,  large  areas  of  land  in  Scotland  have  been  given  to  the 
Government  to  be  subdivided  into  farms  and  leased  to  returning  soldiers. 

The  departmental  committee  appointed  by  the  president  of  the  Board  of 
Agriculture  and  Fisheries  to  study  and  propose  settlement  plans  asked  for 
an  appropriation  of  £2,000,000. 

Administration. — Settlement  of  soldiers  in  England  and  Wales  comes  under 
the  Board  of  Agriculture  and  Fisheries.  In  Scotland  the  Board  of  Agriculture 
is  operating  under  the  same  act. 

The  kind  and  amount  of  aid — The  land. — Assistance  to  soldiers  has  taken 
the  form  of  colonies.  Four  of  these  have  been  established  to  date  by  the  Sol- 
diers and  Sailors  Land  Committee.  The  colonies  to  be  developed  were  planned 
to  accommodate  about  100  families,  each  of  which  is  to  have  from  10  to  25 
acres,  according  to  the  character  of  the  farming.  Two  of  the  colonies  have 
been  obtained  on  a  99-year  lease  at  a  yearly  rental.  The  other  two  were 
purchased.  They  vary  in  size  from  1,000  to  1.345  acres.  Each  of  these  colonies 
is  to  have  an  administration  farm  of  about  250  acres,  on  which  stock  and 
implements  are  maintained  for  the  use  of  the  small  holders.  However,  the 
division  of  the  assets  has,  up  to  the  last  information,  not  been  accomplished. 

('ml it. — The  English  plan  does  not  contemplate  extensive  credit  to  the 
occupiers  of  these  colonies.  The  board  expects  to  supply  opportunities  for 
work  and  to  improve  the  small  holdings  in  a  way  to  make  them  yield  at 
an  early  date  a  support  for  the  settler  and  his  family.  Such  cash  as  may  be 
needed  for  the  purchase  of  stock  may  be  had  from  the  cooperative  credit 
bank  to  be  established  under  the  partnership  of  the  State.  There  are  also 
to  be  accommodations  in  the  way  of  stock  and  implements  at  the  central  farm. 

Land  tenure. — In  line  with  the  traditions  of  British  agriculture,  the  Sol- 
diers and  Sailors  Committee  favors  tenantry  rather  than  ownership.  The 
reasons  given  are:  First,  that  for  the  State  supervision  and  control  it  is 
best ;  second,  to  the  small  holder  tenantry  offers  greater  mobility  and  freedom 
of  movement:  third,  less  capital  is  needed  by  them  in  the  case  of  a  lease  of 
large  areas  than  the  purchase  of  small  holdings.  The  English  small  farmer 
does  not,  it  is  claimed,  care  for  ownership.  During  the  seven  years  the 
small  holdings  act  has  been  in  force  there  have  been  no  applications  for 
purchase. 

The  selection  and  training  of  soldiers. — Discharged  soldiers  of  the  Army  who 
desire  to  farm  are  expected  to  work  at  least  a  year  on  one  of  these  colonies 
before  taking  up  the  small  holding. 

Progress  of  land  settlement. — Very  recent  information  is  not  at  hand  regard- 
ing the  progress  of  land  settlement.  The  four  colonies  have  not  yet  beeft 
fully  established.  It  is  understood,  however,  that  the  Soldiers  and  Sailors 
Committee  is  preparing  to  make  recommendations  for  a  considerable  exten- 
sion of  colony  settlement. 

CANADA. 

Tlir  Dominion  Government. 

Legislation  and  appropriation. — A  soldier  settlement  of  three  members  was 
appointed  in  February,  1918,  following  upon  the  act  of  August  29,  1917,  called 
an  "  Act  to  assist  returned  soldiers  in  settling  upon  the  land  and  to  increase 
agricultural  production."  The  essential  features  of  this  act  are  the  bestowal  of 
agricultural  credit  when  needed  by  soldiers  in  any  part  of  the  Dominion  and 
the  gift  of  Dominion  land  in  western  Canada.  The  credit  may  be  used  for 
acquiring  and  improving  land,  for  the  payment  of  incumbrances,  erection  of 
buildings,  purchase  of  stocks,  etc. 

The  sum  of  $2,916.000  has  been  appropriated  by  Parliament  for  the  purposes 
of  this  act. 

The  administration  of  the  lair. — The  complete  administration  of  the  act  is 
in  the  hands  of  three  departments  or  divisions.  (1)  The  soldier  settlement 
board,  which  with  the  approval  of  the  governors  in  council  may  make  all  funda- 


24  HOMES   FOE  SOLDIERS. 

mental  regulation  with  regard  to  purchase  or  occupation  of  land  and  the  grant- 
ing of  loans.  The  board  has  offices  in  each  Province,  through  which  cooperation 
is  established  with  the  provincial  settlement  boards,  the  land  officers,  and  the 
advisory  boards.  (2)  The  interior  department  handles  all  matters  in  connec- 
tion with  the  entry,  patenting,  etc.,  of  Dominion  lands.  (3)  The  provincial 
advisory  boards,  which  are  made  up  of  community  leaders,  who  serve  without 
pay,  and  whose  recommendations  largely  govern. 

Respective  spheres  of  State  and  Federal  acts. — With  the  exception  of  a 
certain  amount  of  land  in  the  western  Provinces,  the  control  of  patented  lands, 
civil  rights,  and  local  administration  is  in  the  Province.  The  Dominion  settle- 
ment act  has,  therefore,  no  jurisdiction  over  lands  in  the  Provinces,  except  in  the 
case  of  those  lands  reserved  by  the  Government.  The  loans  are  intended  pri- 
marily to  assist  the  soldier  to  develop  the  free  Dominion  lands  and  secondarily 
to  assist  the  Provinces  when  possible.  As  yet  no  general  agreement  has  been 
made  between  the  Provinces  and  the  Dominion  Government  as  to  the  settlement 
of  soldiers.  The  aim,  however,  is  to  support  provincial  plans  and  policies. 

The  kind  and  amount  of  aid  offered — The  land. — By  civil  right  the  soldier  is 
entitled  to  160  acres  of  vacant  Government  land.  As  a  soldier  he  may  take 
up  two  adjoining  quarter  sections,  making  320  acres.  Special  reservations  have 
been  made  within  15  miles  of  the  railroad  in  northern  Alberta. 

The  credit. — The  maximum  amount  which  the  board  can  loan  to  a  settler 
is  $2,500.  However,  the  amount  which  may  be  loaned  the  settler  is  in  every  case 
dependent  upon  the  value  of  the  security  which  he  gives.  In  the  case  of  free 
land  the  value  is  determined  by  its  agricultural  productions  and  the  commercial 
value  of  any  other  security  given.  The  ability  of  the  applicant  to  make  a  living 
and  to  meet  his  obligations  is  taken  into  laccount.  The  loans  will  constitute 
a  first  charge  upon  the  land.  First-mortgage  security  is  given  for  all  loans 
upon  privately  owned  land. 

Payments  of  principal  and  interest  reach  over  20  years;  the  first  two  install- 
ments may  be  deferred,  but  the  deferred  payments  will  continue  to  bear  interest. 

The  rate  of  interest  is  5  per  cent  per  annum. 

The  conditions  of  tenure. — The  law  gives  the  soldier  a  freehold  right  in  the 
land.  Patents,  however,  will  not  be  issued  until  the  entire  loan  is  paid  up. 
Transfers  prior  to  that  time  are  with  the  consent  of  the  board.  Residence  and 
cultivation  of  the  land  are  required.  The  settler  may  at  any  time  pay  to  the 
board  the  whole  or  any  part  of  the  money  borrowed  with  interest. 

Selection  and  training  of  the  soldiers. — Applications  are  passed  on  by  the 
advisory  board  in  each  province.  It  is  the  duty  of  these  boards  to  see  that  the 
applicant  is  justly  dealt  with,  according  to  the  merits  of  the  case.  This  board 
may  send  the  soldier  to  a  farmer  for  instruction  or  to  an  agricultural  training 
station.  He  may  again  place  the  soldier  upon  the  land  and  recommend  that  a 
grant  be  made.  (It  has  been  reported  that  the  men  are  as  a  rule  averse  to  an 
assignment  to  farmers  for  help,  but  are  not  opposed  to  a  period  of  training  in 
an  agricultural  school,  where  presumably  they  may  work  together.) 

The  act  empowers  the  Soldiers  Settlement  Board  to  employ  farm  instructors 
and  inspectors  to  assist  settlers  and  instruction  for  training  in  domestic  and 
household  science  for  settlers'  wives  and  female  dependents. 

The  progress  of  settlement. — One  week  after  the  opening  date  for  filing  appli- 
cations (July,  1918)  a  total  of  28,000  acres  to  181  soldiers  was  granted. 

Six  hundred  and  ninety  thousand  and  eight  hundred  dollars  in  loans  to  GOG 
applicants  were  approved  by  July  15.  It  is  reported  that  10,000  additional  acres 
of  Dominion  land  will  be  cultivated  by  soldiers  this  year. 

New  Brunsirirk. 

Legislation. — The  act  of  April,  1916,  "to  provide  for  settlements  after  the 
war,"  gives  new  duties  to  the  Farm  Settlement  Board  and  creates  an  honorary 
body  known  as  the  Advisory  Board.  The  Advisory  Board  receives  from  the 
Farm  Settlement  Board  proposals  for  the  selection  of  suitable  lands,  both 
private  and  crown;  also  proposals  for  the  furnishing  of  supplies,  equipment, 
instruction,  and  education  to  settlers.  These  proposals  are  reported  with  recom- 
mcndations  to  the  Governor  in  Council,  who  in  turn  may  make  regulations  for 
the  proposals  agreed  upon.  The  Lieutenant  Governor  in  Council  may  borrow 
such  funds  as  may  be  necessary  upon  the  credit  of  the  Province. 

The  kiinl  /Did  nnimntt  of  aid. — Land  will  bo  sold  or  granted  to  settlers  in 
amounts  varying  from  10  to  100  acres.  Opportunity  will  be  given  to  enlarge 
acreage. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  25 

In  purchased  lands  the  soldier  pays  10  per  cent  cash,  the  balance  in  20  years, 
paid  semiannually  with  interest. 

A  patent  or  deed  to  the  land  will  be  given  upon  the  payment  of  all  advances. . 

Selection  and  training  of  soldiers. — New  Brunswick's  plan  is  to  develop  settle- 
ments at  once  and  to  send  men  to  them  for  employment  and  experience.  A  suit- 
able village  or  town  site  is  selected  and  small  farms  laid  out  in  the  immediate 
neighborhood,  with  larger  farms  in  outlying  portions.  A  Government  demon- 
stration farm  is  a  part  of  the  plan ;  here  teams  and  implements  are  available  as 
in  the  case  of  Ontario. 

Settlement  progress. — An  area  of  20,000  acres  has  already  been  set  aside  for. 
beginning  settlements.  These  settlements  are  to  accommodate  100  to  250  families. 

Province  of  Ontario. 

Legislation  and  appropriations. — Of  all  the  Provinces  of  Canada  Ontario  un- 
doubtedly leads  in  the  scheme  which  it  has  adopted  for  the  settlement  of  the 
soldier,  as  well  as  the  progress  that  it  has  made  in  actual  settlement.  The  first 
soldiers'  act  (No.  150)  was  passed  in  1916.  Its  purpose  was  to  make  available 
the  immense  territory  known  as  the  Clay  Belt,  which  extends  west  from  the 
boundary  between  Ontario  and  Quebec  for  a  distance  of  400  miles.  The  soil  is  a 
rich  clay  loam,  free  from  rock  and  well  adapted  to  mixed  farming.  The  district 
is  reached  by  two  railroads. 

A  $5,000,000  appropriation  has  recently  been  made  for  northern  development, 
the  larger  part  of  which  will  be  used  in  the  interest  of  the  soldiers. 

The  administration  of  the  act. — This  is  primarily  in  the  hands  of  the  deputy 
minister  of  lands  and  forests.  A  committee  represented  by  members  from  the 
Department  of  Lands,  Forests  and  Mines,  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  the 
Military  Hospital  Commission,  the  Great  War  Veteran's  Association,  the  Soldiers' 
Aid  Commission,  the  Canadian  Patriotic  Funds  Commission,  and  the  Vocational 
Training  School  pass  upon  applications  and  determine  the  disposition  to  be 
made  of  the  soldier. 

The  plan  is  wholly  a  provincial  one,  so  that  its  relation  thus  far  to  the 
Dominion  board  is  only  indirect  and  incidental. 

Kind  and  amount  of  aid  granted. — One  hundred  acres,  of  which  10  have  been 
cleared,  will  be  allowed  each  soldier  without  charge.  When  necessary  a  loan 
not  to  exceed  $500  will  be  made  to  pay  for  housing,  machinery,  tools,  and  live 
stock.  The  amount  loaned  is  repayable  in  20  years  with  6  per  cent  interest. 
No  payment  of  principal  or  interest  is  required  for  three  years.  This  may 
appear  a  small  amount,  but  is  not  so  when  other  aid  is  taken  into  account.  The 
ex-soldier  is  paid  for  clearing  his  10  acres  and  also  receives  the  assistance  of  his 
fellow  settlers.  A  central  colony  farm  will  be  established  in  each  district. 
Here  the  settler  may  obtain  the  use  of  houses  and  a  stock  of  the  heavier  farm 
implements  without  the  need  of  purchase.  The  central  farm  will  assist  in  many 
other  ways. 

While  the  men  are  in  training  or  employed  in  groups  they  will  be  paid.  Single 
men  receive  $2.50  per  day,  married  men  $1.10  a  day  with  a  maximum  monthly 
allowance  of  $30  for  dependents. 

The  land  tenure. — A  patent  from  the  Crown  is  obtainable  in  five  years  from 
the  time  the  soldier  begins  work  on  his  own  land.  He  must  have  carried  for- 
ward the  development  of  his  land. 

The  selection  and  training  of  soldiers. — Applicants  for  land  are  first  given  a 
physical  examination.  Their  applications  are  then  considered  by  a  committee, 
the  members  of  which  have  already  been  indicated.  Most  of  the  men  are  sent 
to  the  Agricultural  Training  Depot,  established  on  the  Government  experimental 
farm  at  Montieth.  After  longer  or  shorter  training  periods  they  are  then  sent 
to  the  farm  colonies  that  have  already  been  established.  Already  several  hun- 
dred men  have  been  provided  with  land.  As  early  as  October,  1917,  there  were 
500  applications  for  land  on  file. 

British  Columbia. 

l.ciilxliitinn  din]  (ii>i»-()i>ri(iti(ins. — A  number  of  acts  have  been  passed  in  this 
Province  to  aid  the  soldiers.  The  acts  confer  added  powers  upon  the  Land 
Settlement  Board,  which,  with  the  sanction  of  the  Lieutenant  Governor  in 
Council,  can  make  loans,  lease,  exchange,  set  aside  Crown  lands,  purchase, 
subdivide,  and  farm  private  lands.  The  land  settlement  act  of  1918  permits 
the  board  to  establish  "  Settlement  areas  "  whore  good  but  undeveloped  lands 


26  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

are  available.  Owners  therein  must  either  improve  their  lands  or  sell  to  the 
hoard  at  an  appraised  value.  If  the  owner  liles  a  statement  claiming  a  higher 
value,  such  value  will  be  taken  for  assessment.  The  penalty  for  not  making 
improvements  is  a  tax  of  5  per  cent  of  the  board's  or  the  owner's  values,  in 
addition  to  all  other  taxes. 

The  soldier's  land  act  of  1918  empowers  the  board  to  expend  not  more  than 
$500,000  for  the  purchase  of  private  land. 

The  administration. — The  Minister  of  Lands  administers  all  affairs  concern- 
ing lands ;  the  Land  Settlement  Board  in  cooperation  with  other  related  de- 
partments of  the  Government  deals  with  the  soldiers.  The  Agricultural  Credit 
Commission  administers  the  loan  funds.  In  general,  British  Columbia  in  com- 
mon with  most  of  the  other  Provinces  has  not  found  it  necessary  to  provide 
for  service  men,  but  merely  to  enlarge  the  powers  of  the  existing  agencies. 

State  and  Federal  action. — The  act  of  1918  instructs  the  Lieutenant  Governor 
in  Council  to  convey  to  the  Dominion  such  Crown  lands  as  may  be  necessary. 
In  this  way  the  Dominion  appropriation  of  $2,500  may  be  used  for  British 
Columbia  soldiers.  Fifty  thousand  acres  have  already  been  set  aside  for 
soldier  settlement. 

The  British  Columbia  Government  does  not  state  expressly  what  assistance  it 
will  give  soldiers,  cadi  case  being  dealt  with  individually.  The  aid  is  liberal, 
however.  A  soldier  may  acquire  160  acres  of  free  land  or  purchase  through 
the  board  this  amount  of  private  land. 

British  Columbia  follows  the  general  plan  of  Ontario  as  to  the  training  of 
soldiers,  relying  somewhat  more,  perhaps,  on  turning  the  soldiers  over  to 
farmers  to  gain  the  necessary  experience. 

Australia. 

Australia's  experience  in  land  settlement. — The  Australian  States  have  had  a 
relatively  long  experience  in  the  purchase,  subdivision,  and  settlement  of  lands ; 
they  can  in  general  do  little  more  for  the  soldier  than  they  have  done  for  the 
settler  since  1901,  except  to  hasten  the  development  of  new  areas  of  land  and 
to  increase  the  rate  of  purchase.  Between  1901  and  1914  the  six  Australian 
States  purchased  and  subdivided  3,056,957  acres,  for  which  $55,243,125  was 
paid,  or  about  $18  an  acre.  Settlers  were  also  assisted  to  build  homes  and 
to  make  needed  improvements.  Between  1909  and  1914,  $68,029,500  was  loaned 
for  improvements.  The  Commonwealth  Government  alone  will  advance  £100,- 
000  to  settlers  in  1917-18.  It  expects  to  advance  £2,000,000  in  1918-19.  The 
,  farmer  pays  a  higher  rate  of  interest  than  that  paid  by  the  State ;  land  settle- 
ment has,  therefore,  not  been  an  added  burden  to  the  taxpayer.  Although  Aus- 
tralia has  vast  areas  of  land  unoccupied,  most  of  that  which  is  susceptible  of 
being  brought  under  cultivation  at  moderate  expense  has  already  xmdergone 
development.  A  serious  problem  confronts  the  Dominion  and  State  governments 
in  providing  land  in  any  such  proportion  as  that  which  has  already  been  called 
for  by  her  soldiers. 

The  Dominion  Government. — The  Australian  Dominion  Government  was  the 
first  to  draft  a  fully  adequate  law  to  repatriate  the  soldier,  be  he  maimed  or 
whole  bodied.  The  repatriation  act  of  1916  was  intended  to  consolidate  and 
stabilize  the  private  patriotic  funds  which  were  being  accumulated  in  the 
several  States,  and  were  being  administered  locally.  The  Government  added 
to  the  sums  collected  by  the  States,  making  a  total  fund  of  £359,355.  This  was 
used  for  relief  and  vocational  service  of  all  kinds,  including  small  sums  for  the 
reestablishment  of  shops  and  small  farms. 

The  next  step  was  a  beginning  toward  actual  settlement.  In  consideration 
of  the  number  of  men  in  the  Army  who  have  expressed  a  desire  to  take  up 
land  the  Government  contemplates  an  expenditure  of  £20,000,000 — an  equivalent 
for  the  population  of  the  United  States  of  about  $2,000,000,000,  to  place  soldiers 
upon  the  land. 

Respective  spheres  of  State  and  Federal  action. — Under  the  plan  worked  out 
with  the  States  the  latter  are  to  provide  the  land  for  settlement,  while  the 
Commonwealth  makes  advances  to  cover  the  cost  of  the  improvements,  stock, 
etc.  The  plan  of  cooperation  as  at  present  worked  out  is  to  the  effect  that  the 
Commonwealth  will  supply  the  necessary  funds,  amounting  to  £22,000  in  all. 
for  the  credit  and  advances  of  all  kinds  to  settlers.  A  joint  board,  consisting 
of  a  minister  for  each  State  and  the  Commonwealth  minister,  will  supervise 
operations.  "The  board  will  recommend  advances  of  money  to  soldier  settlers. 
decide  upon  the  purposes  for  which  such  advances  may  be  made,  decide  upon  the 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  27 

rate  of  interest  and  method  of  repayment.  *  *  *  The  advances  will  be 
made  at  reasonable  rates.  Each  settler  will  be  allowed  an  advance  up  to  the 
full  value  of  his  improvements.  In  this  way  capital  which  each  settler  must 
possess  of  his  own  will  be  reduced  to  a  comparatively  small  figure." 

New  South  Wales. 

Legislation  and  appropriation. — The  soldiers'  settlement  act  was  passed  in 
1916  and  amended  in  1917,  which  gave  the  minister  power  to  set  apart  any  area, 
crown  land  or  land  acquired  in  closer  settlement  acts,  for  the  benefit  of  soldiers. 
In  general,  land  is  acquired  by  the  soldiers  under  the  customary  forms  of  land 
tenure,  such  as  that  of  the  Farmstead  Home  or  the  Crown  Lease.  Provisions 
are  made  in  the  Returned  Soldiers'  Special  Holding  and  in  that  of  Group 
Settlement  Purchase.  This  special  legislation  gives  the  settlers  a  few  advan- 
tages, such  as  that  of  group  settlement  and  application  by  one  or  more  (instead 
of  three)  settlers  for  the  purchase  of  private  land  which  the  purchaser  has 
selected. 

Tlie  administration. — The  Minister  of  Lands  has  full  charge  of  all  settlements 
and  loans.  A  large  number  of  district  land  officers  assist.  Applications  are 
dealt  with  by  a  Classification  Committee. 

New  South  Wales  has  developed  a  complete  system  for  settlement  and  ad- 
vance of  credit;  mention  is  not  made  of  the  existence  of  a  working  arrange- 
ment with  the  Dominion  Government. 

Kind  and  amount  of  aid — The  land. — The  most  important  aid  which  New 
South  Wales  gives  her  soldiers  is  found  in  the  method  by  which  land  values 
are  fixed  and  the  long  time  allowed  for  payment,  and  low  interest  rate.  The 
value  fixed  is  as  near  the  earning  capacity  of  the  land  and  its  location  as  it 
is  possible  to  make  it.  The  annual  payments  are  fixed  at  2$  per  cent  of  this 
capital  value.  The  semiannual  payments  are  spread  over  38  years,  the  first 
two  years  being  omitted.  In  the  case  of  the  group-settlement  purchase  five 
years'  residence  on  the  block  or  employment  in  the  group  settlement  is  re- 
quired. Payments  begin  six  months  after  purchase  and  are  at  the  rate  of  6 
per  cent  of  the  value.  In  the  purchase  of  private  land  with  the  approval  of 
the  minister  the  purchaser  is  obliged  to  pay  the  first  installment,  the  balance 
being  provided  by  the  Government,  and  repayable  by  annual  installments.  Ten 
years'  residence  is  required,  and  improvement  equal  to  10  per  cent  of  capital 
value  must  be  effected  in  2  years,  15  per  cent  in  5  years,  and  25  per  cent  in  10 
years. 

The  credit. — Five  hundred  pounds  are  advanced  for  improvements.  Such 
advances  will  be  allowed  for  improvements  effected  by  the  settler  in  the  same 
way  as  if  work  had  been  done  by  contract  or  hired  labor.  Maintenance  is 
allowed  during  probationary  work,  but  such  allowances  must  come  out  of  the 
loan.  Repayment  of  loans  will  be  extended  over  25  years  (first  five  years'  in- 
terest only  to  be  paid).  Tools,  stock,  and  implements  are  paid  for  in  six  years 
(first  year  interest  only  to  be  paid).  Seeds,  plants,  trees,  one  year. 

The  land  tenure. — New  South  Wales  does  not  give  an  absolute  title  to  the 
land.  When  all  conditions  have  been  met  the  holder  receives  a  lease  in  per- 
petuity, which  for  all  practical  purposes  is  equivalent  to  a  freehold  title.  The 
"  rent  "  for  the  land,  as  has  been  said,  is  based  upon  the  capital  value  of  the 
land  as  determined  by  the  Local  Land  Board,  reappraisement  of  this  value 
being  made  in  20-year  periods. 

Selection  and  training  of  the  soldiers. — Every  man  in  the  imperial  service 
who  wants  a  farm  is  given  an  opportunity  to  show  his  fitness.  He  may  on  his 
own  initiative  gain  six  months'  experience  on  a  farm  or  go  to  the  Government 
Farm  for  the  necessary  training. 

xdtlemait  progress. — The  State  has  made  fair  progress  in  providing  farms. 
Preparation  of  1.000  farms  in  the  Yanco  irrigation  area  is  already  under  way. 
The  average  farm  is  to  be  50  acres.  Other  areas  are  under  development. 

The  State  plans  to  lay  great  emphasis  upon  the  cooperative  services  which 
may  he  used  in  the  community.  These  services  apply  not  only  to  the  prepara- 
tion of  the  lands  of  settlers,  but  to  such  matters  as  distribution  and  sale  of 
products,  purchase  of  supplies,  establishment  and  management  of  canneries, 
creameries,  etc.  Settlers  on  the  projects  of  the  State  have  always  shown  great 
willingness  to  loan  their  labor  and  their  teams  for  the  use  of  newcomers. 

The  State  has  already  been  called  upon  to  provide  farms  for  5,000  ex-soldiers 
and  is  finding  difficulty  in  keeping  pace  with  the  demand,  although  up  to  March 
the  Government  had  purchased  18  estates  of  171,213  acres,  and  it  is  proposed 
to  make  2,000,000  acres  available  by  January,  1920. 


28  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

Victoria. 

Legislation  and  appropriations. — Under  the  Victoria  closer  settlement  act 
some  567,687  acres  have  been  purchased  for  civilian  settlement.  The  lands 
average  $37  an  acre  in  cost  and  were  sold  to  the  settlers  for  about  $45  an  acre, 
supervision  and  settlement,  absorbing  the  difference.  Up  to  the  beginning  of 
the  year  4,112  settlers  had  secured  land  under  the  act. 

Victoria's  act  for  the  settlement  of  discharged  soldiers  on  the  land  was 
]  nisscd  October,  1917  (8  Geo.  V  2916).  The  act  makes  special  provision  for 
returned  soldiers  beyond  those  found  in  the  general  closer  settlement  act  of 
1!)1.~>.  It  also  authorizes  extensive  development  of  irrigated  areas  and  pur- 
chase of  nonirrigable  land.  Moneys  expended  in  agricultural  development  come 
from  the  sale  of  State  bonds  in  the  London  market. 

Administration  of  the  law. — The  land  purchase  and  management  board, 
responsible  to  a  minister  of  lands,  administers  the  law  in  regard  to  all  non- 
irrigable  land,  and  the  State  Rivers  and  Water  Supply  Commission  is  re- 
sponsible for  settlement  upon  irrigable  areas. 

The  council  of  every  district  or  municipality  is  made  an  advisory  committee 
to  the  board.  The  diity  of  these  committees  is  to  report  upon  land  available,  to 
aid  and  encourage  soldiers  and  to  assist  the  board  in  every  way. 

Victoria  has  opened  her  lands  to  all  soldiers  of  the  empire  who  have  been 
duly  certified  in  London  as  fitted  for  settlement.  The  State  has  been  hasten- 
ing the  improvement  of  all  available  irrigated  land  and  has  made  large  pur- 
chases of  land  in  regions  of  satisfactory  rainfall.  Data  are  not  at  hand  as  to 
the  acreage  purchased,  but  some  $5,000,000  has  been  set  side  for  this  purpose. 

It  is  believed  that  an  expenditure  of  $25,000,000  will  be  necessary  to  pro- 
vide sufficient  land  for  the  soldiers  who  return  or  come  to  Victoria. 

Respective  spheres,  etc. — Victoria  was  a  party  to  the  original  agreement  with 
the  Dominion  Government  with  regard  to  the  consolidation  of  the  repatriation 
fund.  She  will  probably,  if  she  has  not  already  done  so,  adopt  the  Dominion 
plan  of  settlement  as  outlined. 

Kind  and  amount  of  aid. — Civilian  settlers  are  required  to  pay  a  deposit  of  3 
per  cent  on  the  capital  value  of  the  land  on  taking  it,  and  to  make  amortized 
payments  of  6  per  cent  per  annum  for  31$  years.  Soldiers,  however,  need 
make  no  payments  for  3  years. 

It  is  preferred  that  the  soldier  have  some  capital.  To  this  and  to  the 
value  contributed  by  the  soldier's  labor,  the  State  will  make  additions.  The 
general  rule  for  advances  is  70  per  cent  of  existing  value  up  to  $2,500.  All 
loans  are  made  by  the  State  Savings  Bank. 

The  State  will  also  make  advances  to  those  soldiers  who  desire  to  go  in  for 
share  farming,  when  such  loans  are  indorsed  by  the  proper  authorities. 

Tenure  of  the  land. — Victoria  bestows  a  freehold  right  in  the  land.  The 
applicant  for  land  under  the  general  act  gets  a  right  to  occupy.  He  then 
receives  a  conditional  purchase  lease  which  may  run  for  the  period  of  the  pay- 
ments. At  the  expiration  of  12  years,  if  all  covenants  and  agreements  have 
been  met,  and  all  purchase  money  for  land  and  improvements  paid,  a  Crown 
Grant  for  the  land  is  given. 

Residence  for  eight  months  is  required  of  the  civilian;  the  soldier  is  exempt 
from  this  requirement,  but  he  may  not  have  two  holdings  and  can  not  sublease. 

Selection  and  truinini/  of  soldiers. — Experience  is  gained  at  the  Agricultural 
College  or  -in  working  for  farmers  on  the  Land  Board.  The  local  advisory 
bodies  and  the  land  officers  have  the  responsibility  of  selecting  men. 

Victoria  is  having  difficulty  in  providing  land  fast  enough  for  soldier  needs. 
The  Land  Board  has  asked  holders  of  large  tracts  to  get  together  and  set 
apart  and  subdivide  acreage  for  soldiers'  needs. 

Queensland. 

I.<'!/ixl<il!on  and  iipproitriutions. — The  Discharged  Soldiers  act  of  1917  (No. 
32  of  1917)  provides  facilities  for  the  land  settlements  of  discharged  soldiers. 
Practically  all  of  the  Crown  land  in  the  State  has  been  reserved  for  the 
soldiers.  Sixty  thousand  acres  of  this  land  have  been  especially  set  aside  for 
group  settlements.  The  constitution  of  the  Consolidated  Revenue  Fund  by 
means  of  sales  of  bonds  is  arranged  through  the  Governor  in  Council.  All  ex- 
penditures are  made  by  the  Minister  of  Lands,  with  the  approval  of  the  Gov- 
ernor in  Council.  The  act  does  not  state  the  amount  of  the  fund,  but  bonds 
are  authorized  to  meet  the  requirements. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  29 

The  kind  and  amount  of  aid. — In  Queensland.  as  in  New  South  Wales,  public 
land  is  dispose!  of  under  lease.  The  terms  to  the  soldier  are  most  generous. 
No  rent  is  required  for  the  first  three  years,  and  from  the  fourth  to  the  fifteenth 
year  the  annual  rent  is  1*  per  cent  of  the  capital  value,  and  is  fixed  by  the 
Minister  of  Land.  However,  the  lessee  is  obliged  to  meet  requirements  as  to 
improvements  and  residence.  For  the  first  10  years  of  the  term  the  soldier 
settler  may  not  mortgage  his  land  except  to  the  Commissioner  of  the  Government 
Savings  Bank,  or  transfer  it.  except  to  another  returned  soldier. 

For  Crown  land  the  capital  value  will  be  from  10  shillings  per  acre  upward, 
and  will  not  go  beyond  30  shillings  per  acre.  On  resumed  areas  the  capital 
value  will  depend  on  the  price  paid  by  the  State. 

(•/•<<Jit  nilrances. — The  soldier  settler  may  borrow  up  to  $2.500  from  tho 
Government  Savings  Bank  for  making  improvements  on  the  land,  erecting 
dwellings,  etc.  Wliile  the  civilian  settler  pays  5  per-  cent  for  such  loans,  the 
soldier  settler  pays  hut  3*  per  cent  for  the  first  year.  4  per  cent  during  the 
second  year,  and  an  increasing  rate  of  $  per  cent  per  year  until  the  rate  of  5 
per  cent  is  reached.  The  repayment  of  the  loan  reaches  over  40  years.  Ad- 
vances for  the  purchase  of  stock,  machinery,  or  implements  may  command 
nn  additional  loan.  In  fact  the  total  advances  may  amount  to  as  much  as 
S6.000. 

Land  tenure. — Botli  in  the  case  of  public  land  and  that  resumed  a  freehold 
title  is  not  given,  but  in  its  place  the  occupant  receives  a  perpetual  lease  selec- 
tion when  all  the  conditions  have  been  met. 

yvoorrs-.y  of  *oldier  settlement. — Three  large  areas  are  at  present  undergoing 
development  for  soldier  settlement.  The  Beerburren  Settlement  is  in  the  most 
advanced  condition.  The  total  area  of  this  settlement  is  some  51.000  acres  and 
the  land  is  suitable  for  pineapple  growing,  also  that  of  citrus  fruits.  At  this 
settlement  there  is  a  training  farm  where  the  men  are  given  working  knowledge 
of  the  agricultural  conditions  of  the  region.  They  receive  wages  of  from  two 
pounds  to  two  pounds  ten  shillings  a  week  while  there.  There  is  also  a  general 
store  and  a  State  school,  together  with  a  library.  At  Pikedale,  a  border  town 
near  New  South  Wales,  there  is  also  another  area  of  17.400  acres.  Clearing 
and  road  making  is  going  on  in  this  reservation.  A  State  nursery  has  been 
planned  and  soldiers  wHl  be  employed  on  it.  Another  center  is  at  Oswald's 
Track  in  North  Queensland  near  Innisfall.  Here  157,300  acres  have  been 
reserved  for  soldiers.  The  land  is  suitable  for  dairying,  general  agriculture,  and 
sugar-cane  farms.  Another  40.000  acres  are  projected  in  the  Cecil  Plains  in 
the  Toowoomla  district,  and  still  another  112.000  acres  on  Mount  Button.  Fur- 
ther areas  amounting  to  52,400  acres  in  various  parts  of  the  State  have  been 
set  aside. 

South  Australia. 

The  administration. — In  this  State  an  act  was  passed  in  1915,  and  another 
in  1916  (7  Geo.  V,  No.  1264).  In  this  act.  the  powers  of  the  land  board,  the 
land  commissioner,  and  the  governor  are  specified.  The  governor  has  the  power 
to  set  aside  lands,  to  purchase  lands,  and  to  make  any  regulations  conducive  to 
the  purpose  of  the  act.  A  separate  machinery  is  not  set  up  for  the  execution  of 
the  law. 

South  Australia  has  joined  the  Federal  plan  as  outlined  under  Dominion 
Government. 

The  aid  rendered  soldiers. — The  usual  low  rate  of  interest  and  long-term  pay- 
ments are  accorded  the  soldier.  Assistance  for  development  is  available  both 
from  the  State  and  the  Federal  Government.  The  rent  of  the  land  in  the  case 
of  the  soldier  may  be  remitted  for  as  long  a  time  as  the  cocmissioner  deems 
necessary.  The  settler  is  expected  to  have  some  capital. 

Tenure  of  the  land. — South  Australia  gives  a  perpetual  lease  rather  than  a 
freehold  title.  No  lease  granted  can  be  transferred  except  on  the  recommenda- 
tion of  the  land  board  with  the  consent  of  the  commissioner. 

Training  of  soldiers. — The  Government  has  established  farms  in  the  repur- 
chased land  and  the  irrigation  areas  for  the  training  of  ex-service  men  who 
have  not  had  previous  experience. 

Progress  of  settlement. — Two  large  blocks  of  land  have  been  purchased  for 
closer  settlement.  There  are  large  areas  of  Crown  lands  suitable  for  wheat 
growing.  Much  other  land  is  available  when  it  can  be  drained. 


30  HOMES  FOE  SOLDIERS. 

Western  Australia. 

Government  provisions. — The  State  has  reserved  land  in  the  "  Wheat  belt  "" 
and  in  the  "  Southwest."  In  the  wheat  belt  the  soldier  may  purchase  840  acres 
at  15  shillings  per  acre  and  select  160  acres  for  which  he  need  only  pay  the 
survey  fee.  For  this  and  for  any  money  the  Government  may  have  expended 
for  the  land,  payment  is  spread  over  30  years.  To  handle  such  a  farm  the 
soldier  should  have  a  capital  of  £500,  but  some  of  this  can  be  borrowed  from  the 
Agricultural  Bank.  Residence  and  progressive  improvements  are  required. 

In  the  Southwest  timbered  land  the  soldier  may  select  160  acres.  A  part  of 
this  will  be  cleared  by  the  Government. 

Training  stations  are  provided  in  the  Southwest.  The  State  does  not  pay  men 
while  gaining  experience,  as  work  is  available  on  every  hand. 

Tasmania. 

Tasmania  has,  in  general,  followed  the  plan  of  New  Zealand  in  dividing  its 
lands  for  soldier  settlement  into  ordinary  and  special  tenures.  By  the  act  of 
1916  (7  George  V,  No.  20)  the  Closer  Settlement  Board,  established  by  prior 
acts,  was  given  the  task  of  soldier  settlement,  the  same  act  providing  a  closer 
settlement  fund  of  not  less  than  £150,000.  The  Tasmanian  Administration  is 
notably  liberal  with  soldiers.  Interest  is  waived  for  the  first  12  months  and 
payments  of  principal  for  the  first  four  years,  all  of  the  deferred  interest  being 
added  on  to  the  principal  to  be  paid  back  over  a  long  term  of  years.  In  common 
with  other  Australian  States  this  Government  gives  the  soldier  a  credit  of  £500. 

The  land  can  be  acquired  either  by  purchase  or  on  lease.  First-class  land 
may  be  bought  by  the  200  acres  at  £1  per  acre;  second-class  land  of  a  larger 
number  of  acres  can  be  obtained  at  10  shillings  per  acre,  and  third-class  land  of 
still  larger  areas  at  5  shillings  per  acre. 

Residence  is  necessary  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  Crown  Lands  acts. 
No  interest  or  taxes  will  be  payable  for  four  years  for  the  sale,  or  in  the  case  of 
lease  of  the  land  no  rent  will  be  charged  for  the  first  year. 

NEW  ZEALAND. 

Legislation  and  appropriations. — The  first  act  was  passed  in  1915,  but  It  was 
extensively  amended  in  1916  and  1917.  Lands  for  soldiers  are  of  two  classes, 
ordinary  tenures  being  areas  for  general  farming  and  sheep  runs,  and  special 
tenure  being  small  acreage  near  towns  and  cities,  largely  for  disabled  soldiers. 
Lands  under  ordinary  tenures  are  purchased  or  set  apart  by  proclamation.  These 
may  be  obtained  for  cash,  occupation  with  right  of  purchase,  renewal  lease,  or 
small  grazing  run  lease,  as  the  case  may  be. 

In  the  year  1917,  276,290  acres  were  set  apart  for  the  soldiers. 

The  demand  for  land  in  New  Zealand  is  very  great,  the  best  portions  which 
are  suitably  served  by  transportation  being  already  settled.  Under  the  Public 
Works  act  (1908)  the  Government  has  the  right  to  prescribe  the  limit  of  area 
which  may  be  retained  by  a  landowner  for  different  classes  of  land.  This  law  is 
invoked  for  the  benefit  of  the  soldier,  in  the  case  of  land  in  the  neighborhood  of 
the  cities.  In  1916  £500,000  was  appropriated  for  this  purpose.  The  Land 
Board  may  also  purchase  any  private  property  when  it  is  specifically  applied  for 
by  a  discharged  soldier.  In  this  case  land  must  be  offered  voluntarily  to  the 
State.  • 

In  addition  to  the  above  amount  £120,000  has  been  appropriated  for  advances 
to  soldiers  and  for  roadways  opening  blocks  of  land. 

The  administration. — Land  purchases  and  settlements  are  placed  in  the  hands 
of  the  Land  Board  with  the  consent  of  the  minister.  The  Land  Board  is  assisted 
by  a  staff  of  inspectors  and  instructors.  Complaint  is  made,  however,  that  the 
absence  of  a  special  soldiers'  board  has  been  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  the 
soldier ;  that  his  case  and  his  rights  which  have  been  recognized  so  fully  else- 
where are  not  sufficiently  protected. 

Kind  and  amount  of  aid. — In  the  purchase  of  land  the  soldier  pays  5  per  cent 
down  and  5  per  cent  interest.  A  lease  will  have  a  66-year  term,  with  perpetual 
right  of  renewal  at  the  rate  of  4i  per  cent  based  on  the  capital  value  of  the  land. 

Advances  of  £500  and  even  £750  will  lie  made  for  purchases  of  private  land, 
for  transfer  of  lease,  or  any  land  administered  by  the  board.  Such  advances  are 
also  used  for  all  ordinary  purposes  of  improvement.  All  sums  are  advanced 
as  required  rather  than  in  Jump. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  31 

Land  tenure. — This  is  either  in  the  form  of  lease  or  freehold.  New  Zealand 
has  not  adopted  a  uniform  policy  in  either  direction  in  the  case  of  settled  lands. 
Lands  held  under  lease  may  be  purchased  by  the  soldier.  The  range  land  is, 
however,  always  held  under  lease.  The  soldier  is  not  permitted  to  transfer  his 
land  without  the  consent  of  the  board  for  a  period  of  10  years.  The  land  is  re- 
valued at  intervals,  both  for  taxation  and  lease  payments. 

Selection,  training,  and  placing  of  soldiers. — The  board  does  not  emphasize 
preparatory  training.  A  man  is  early  placed  upon  the  land,  and  his  instruction 
left  to  agricultural  agents. 

Up  to  March  31,  1917,  319  applicants  were  provided  with  143,524  acres.  One 
hundred  and  eighty  were  placed  upon  Crown  lands  and  131  upon  land  acquired 
under  the  land  settlement  act. 

The  Government  has  provided  suburban  land  suitable  for  market  gardening, 
poultry  farms,  small  areas  of  rural  land  adapted  to  beekeeping,  small  farms 
suitable  for  dairying,  fruit  growing,  etc. ;  large  holdings  suitable  for  mixed 
farming ;  and  pastoral  country  for  grazing  only. 

Thirty  thousand  nine  hundred  and  fifty-six  pounds  have  been  paid  to  143 
soldiers.  The  rate  of  progress  is,  however,  not  entirely  satisfactory.  Of  the 
16,670  soldiers  that  have  returned  from  the  front  up  to  May  1,  1918,  only  624 
have  taken  up  land.  It  is  claimed  settlement  is  not  pushed  by  the  land  board. 

UNION  OF  SOUTH  AMERICA. 

No  legislation  of  importance  has  been  passed  in  the  Union  of  South  Africa 
making  toward  the  settlement  of  soldiers.  The  British  South  African  Co.  has 
500,000  acres  for  settlement.  There  has  also  been  formed  the  Royal  Colony 
Institute  with  2,000  acres  of  ii-rigable  land.  This  land  is  to  be  divided  into 
blocks  of  30  and  40  acres,  the  latter  to  be  the  maximum  to  be  allowed,  although 
a  settler  may  acquire  further  land  outside  of  this  area.  The  State  will  provide 
station  officers  and  will,  if  necessary,  arrange  for  the  erection  of  such  perma- 
nent improvements  as  are  necessary,  the  cost  of  this  undertaking  to  be  added  to 
the  purchase  price. 

The  British  South  African  Co.'s  land  is  irrigable  and  they  will  clear  the  land 
of  bush,  stumps,  and  plow  to  a  depth  of  9  or  10  inches.  Twenty  per  cent  of  the 
purchase  price  will  be  paid  in  six  years  and  the  balance  in  the  four  following 
years.  A  settler  there  will  not  pay  interest  in  the  first  five  years  in  which  he 
is  establishing  himself.  A  working  capital  of  $2,500  is  considered  necessary. 


I  also  inclose,  for  Mr.  Sinnott's  information,  a  more  recent  state- 
ment of  what  has  been  done  in  Great  Britain  and  the  Dominion  of 
Canada  and  Ontario  on  soldier  settlement  matters  than  is  contained 
in  the  pamphlet  by  Dr.  Mead,  Summary  of  Soldier  Settlements  in 
English-Speaking  Countries,  which  comprised  Exhibit  D  to  the 
report  of  May  22. 

Cordially,  yours, 

JOHN  W.  HALLOWELL, 

Assistant  to  the  Secretary. 
Enc.  15816. 


GKEAT   BRITAIN. 
[From  special  correspondence  to  the  New  York  Sun,  May  1,  1919.] 

The  Government  has  four  plans.  The  first  is  the  forming  of  a  training 
colony.  Here  the  men  take  a  course  in  practical  agriculture,  which  is  consid- 
ered necessary,  as  many  soldiers  going  on  the  land  have  had  little  experience, 
principally  in  working  an  allotment  or  a  kitchen  garden  only.  During  tuition 
the  men  are  paid  $7.50  a  week,  with  a  further  allowance  if  married  for  their 
wives  and  children. 

After  completing  the  course  of  training,  men  with  capital  are  to  be  provided 
with  plots  under  the  small-holdings  act.  The  Government  will  grant  on  loan 
for  the  purchase  of  land  or  stock  a  sum  equal  to  the  capital  of  the  applicant. 


32  HOMES   FOB  SOLDIERS. 

Under  what  is  known  as  a  tenant  holding  there  is  provided  a  cottage  with 
sufficient  land  to  keep  a  cow  and  a  little  small  stock  and  to  provide  a  kitchen 
garden  for  growing  the  family  vegetables.  This  is  for  men  who  are  skilled 
workers  and  is  instituted  with  the  idea  that  the  man  works  the  ground  for  his 
own  needs  and  spends  the  greater  part  of  his  time  working  at  his  own  trade. 

For  the  man  without  capital  the  plan  favored  is  that  of  an  industrial  colony. 
A  large  farm  will  he  worked  by  these  men  under  the  direction  of  a  skilled 
manager.  The  staff  will  be  employed  at  a  wage  slightly  higher  than  the  mini- 
mum prevailing  in  the  district  and  will  receive  a  percentage  of  profit  after  ex- 
penses have  been  paid. 

The  board  of  agriculture  has  acquired  about  6,000  acres  in  four  districts.  At 
Patrington  in  Yorkshire,  Holbeach  in  Lincolnshire,  Heath  Hill  in  Shropshire, 
and  Pembrey  on  the  coast  of  Carmarthenshire  colonies  have  been  arranged. 

Patrington,  an  estate  of  2..WH  acres,  will  bo  run  as  a  single  great  industrial 
farm,  the  profits  of  which  will  be  shared  by  those  who  do  the  work.  Holbeach 
is  to  be  a  group  of  distinct  small  holdings  of  id  acres  cadi  organized  on  a 
cooperative  basis. 

The  Patrington  Crown  Colony,  which  is  about  8  miles  from  the  village  of 
that  name,  is  not.  far  from  the  1  lumber  and  is  known  locally  as  "  Warpe 
Land'';  that  is.  land  reclaimed  from  the  sea.  The  deep  alluvial  soil  is  better 
suited  for  heavy  crops  of  wheat  and  beans  than  for  fruit  growing  and  market 
gardening,  which  are  the  staple  products  of  the  small  holdings  of  10  acres. 
This  is  the  reason  for  the  prolit-sharing  system  and  the  policy  of  working  the 
Crown  Colony  as  a  single  big  farm. 

The  colony  is  easily  distinguished  by  the  identical  pairs  of  red-roofed  and 
red-walled  cottages  built  for  the  settlers.  Each  house  has  a  half  acre  of  land 
for  the  resident's  own  use.  The  central  homestead  is  typical  English  farm  of 
ancient  type,  suggestive  of  peace  and  prosperity. 

A  man  and  his  family  can  earn  a  fair  and  healthy  livelihood  on  the  Patrington 
colony.  The  current  rate  of  wages  is  $8.40,  while  the  settler's  rent  amounts  to 
only  72  cents  a  week.  For  this  he  gets  a  five-roomed  house  and  a  half  acre  of 
garden. 

Holbeach  is  an  object  lesson  in  colonization  on  a  technical  plan.  It  consists 
of  about  1,000  acres.  200  of  which  are  reserved  as  a  central  demonstration 
farm,  round  which  the  eighty  10-acre  holdings  are  grouped.  From  this  central 
farm  the  colonists  will  get  implements,  seeds,  fertilixers.  and  everything  they 
require  on  cooperative  terms,  and  also  free  expert  advice  from  the  director. 
The  center  aso  will  undertake  the  distribution  of  produce  on  the  most  advan- 
tageous terms.  Vegetables  and  fruit  will  be  the  staples  of  production,  and 
will  be  marketed  in  the  midland  towns  and  in  London. 


[From   S.  Maber,   Secretary,   Soldier  Settlement  Board,   April  29,   1919.] 

The  Soldier  Settlement  Board  commenced  its  duties  on  February  8,  1918, 
establishing  the  head  office  at  Ottawa,  the  capital  of  the  Dominion  and  the 
seat  of  government.  The  administrative  work  of  the  board  is  vested  in  three 
commissioners  appointed  by  the  government,  one  of  whom  sits  as  chairman,  and 
a  second  as  secretary.  As  a  department  of  the  government  all  appointments  to 
the  staff  of  the  board  are  made  under  the  authority  of  the  civil  service  com- 
mission. 

Under  the  immediate  supervision  of  the  secretary  there  are  seven  branches — 
"  Agricultural  Training,".  "Accounts,"  "  Legal,"  "  General  Correspondence," 
"  Lands,"  "  Loans,"  and  "  Livestock  and  Equipment."  The  heads  of  these  de- 
partments supervise  through  the  provincial  superintendent's  offices  the  field 
work  carried  on  by  its  respective  representatives  on  the  provincial  staff.  All 
applications  received  from  prospective  soldier  "  settlers  "  are  dealt  with  by  the 
provincial  superintendent  for  the  Province  in  which  applicant  desires  to  settle 
in,  which  office  is  empowered  with  the  necessary  authority  to  extend  loans,  nego- 
tiate purchases  of  privately  owned  and  partly  improved  farms  and  through  his 
staff  generally  supervises  the  procedure  prospective  "  settlers "  are  required 
to  follow  to  get  settled  on  the  land  and  continue  such  assistance  and  super- 
vision after  settlement  to  insure  the  "  settler  "  every  opportunity  to  success- 
fully manage  his  farm,  pay  off  his  indebtedness  to  the  board,  and  provide  a 
comfortable  living  for  his  dependents. 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  33 

The  attached  diagram  explains  the  organization  of  the  board  and  channels 
of  responsibility. 

Since  the  board's  inception  the  following  figures  represent  the  extent  of  loans 
made  monthly,  commencing  April,  1918 : 

Loans  during  April,  1918 $18,645.82 

Loans  during  May,  1918 78,  750. 14 

Loans  during  June,  1918 76,166.95 

Loans  during  July.  1918 93,  967.  82 

Loans  during  August,  1918 107,  902.  80 

Loans  during  September,  1918 84,201.39 

Loans  during  October,  1918 95,  767.  39 

Loans  during  November,  1918 96,260.04 

Loans  during  December,  1918 102, 155.  00 

Loans  during  January,  1919 82,037.59 

Loans  during  February.  1919 89,  034.  83 

Loans  during  March,  1919___ 157, 138. 15 

Our  records  show  over  2,500  men  have  taken  advantage  of  the  free  soldier 
entry  and  homestead  grant  since  the  soldier-settlement  act  came  into  operation. 
With  the  signing  of  the  armistice  and  the  subsequent  rapid  demobilization  of 
the  troops,  the  work  of  the  provincial  staffs  and  the  head  office  of  the  board 
has  increased  to  such  proportion  that  a  very  much  increased  personnel  has 
been  required  to  meet  the  pressure  of  the  work. 

Since  the  original  act  was  passed  the  progress  of  the  work  has  brought  to 
the  front  many  and  varied  problems  interdependent  to  the  success  of  the 
scheme  for  the  consideration  of  the  board,  the  solving  of  which  has  necessi- 
tated amendments  vitally  affecting  the  original  act  and  directed  to  the  attain- 
ment of  a  broad,  far-reaching,  practical  policy  of  land  settlement,  having  for 
its  object  increased  production  and  as  a  substantial  measure  of  reconstruction 
to  offset  the  aftermath  of  war  conditions. 

Board : 

Secretary's  office — 
Accounts. 

Agricultural  training. 
Lands. 
Legal. 
Loans. 

Live  stock  and  equipment. 
General  correspondence. 
Ottawa — Provincial  office : 
Salvage  or  reclamation. 

Following  up  instruction — Inspection — Assistance. 
Live  stock  and  equipment. 
Qualification  branch — 
Agricultural  training. 
Agricultural  qualification  committee — 
Schools. 

Experienced  farmers. 
Appraisal  branch — 

Valuations  and  appraisals. 
Loan  advisory  board. 

ONTABIO. 
[From  Felix  S.  S.  Johnson,  American  consul,  Kingston,  Canada,  May  5,  1919.] 

There  have  been  received  by  the  Ontario  government  97  applications  for 
farm  loans  by  discharged  soldiers.  The  majority  of  the  farms  selected  and 
approved  of  as  security  for  the  $5,000  Government  loan  which  will  apply  on  the 
purchase  price  are  of  about  100  acres  in  extent  and  intended  for  mixed  farming, 
though  there  is  one  instance  of  a  400-acre  place,  this  being  cheap,  rough  land 
in  the  north  part  of  Hastings  County  (Kingston  consular  district),  which  has 
been  chosen  for  seniiranching  purposes. 

Recently  an  addition  has  been  made  to  the  working  force  of  the  soldiers'  set- 
tlement board  in  the  form  of  a  department  to  supervise  the  deals  made  by  extend- 

133319—19 53 


34  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

ing  soldier  settlers,  in  connection  with  the  $2,000  loan  to  provide  for  the  pur- 
pose of  live  stock  and  farm  equipment. 

In  the  event  of  a  soldier  settler  making  a  purchase  of  live  stock  or  farm  equip- 
ment under  the  loan  agreement  the  settlement  board  are  obliged  to  have  an 
idea  of  the  value  of  the  animals  or  material  purchased,  in  view  of  the  necessity 
of  assuring  security  for  the  loan.  Provided  the  applicant  displays  sound  judg- 
ment  in  making  his  first  few  purchases,  he  is  given  considerable  leeway,  and 
to  date  the  majority  of  the  deals  made  or  suggested  by  applicants  for  the  loan 
have  been  entirely  satisfactory. 

In  most  cases  the  first  purchase,  after  that  of  the  farm,  made  by  most  of  the 
soldier  settlers  is  a  team  of  horses,  and  the  selections  in  this  line  give  evidence 
of  the  ability  of  the  settlers  as  horsemen.  However,  the  interest  in  live  stock 


does  not  stop  at  horses. 
either  cattle,  sheep,  or  sw 
In  the  matter  of  equi] 
selves  with  quite  a  fail- 
tools,  and  are  being  assi 
from  the  live  stock  and 


id  most  of  the  men  show  an  inclination  to  invt 
ne  or  all  three  to  a  considerable  extent, 
nent  most  of  ihe  soldier  settlers  are  providing  them- 
share  of  good   secondhand   harness,   implements,   and 
ted  in  making  purchases  of  new  material  by  advice 
•quipment  division  of  the  board,  and  in  addition  the 


board  has  secured  an  arrangement  with  the  manufacturers  by  which  the  soldiers 
settling  on  farms  may  secure  new  harness  of  a  standard  pattern  at  a  very  reason- 
able price  whenever  they  see  tit  to  make  application  for  same. 

WORK    AND    HOMES    FOR    KKTTKMXG    SOLDIERS. 

Ftitteiitent    of   Hon.    Franklin    K.    Lane.    Serretarii   of    11/r    Interim-,    before 
Committee  on  Irrigation  of  Arid  Lands,  Januarii  10,  JUl'.i. 

Secretary  LANE.  Mr.  Chairman,  this  scheme  for  providing  work  and  homes 
on  reclaimed  land  for  our  returned  soldiers,  which  has  been  talked  about  a 
good  deal  in  the  press  and  which  I  made  one  of  the  principal  features  of  my 
annual  report  this  year,  has,  as  you  know,  received  the  indorsement  of  the 
President  in  his  message  to  the  Congress  of  December  2.  I  was  very  proud 
to  see  in  the  papers  yesterday  morning  that  the  last  article  written  by  Col. 
Roosevelt  was  an  editorial  for  one  of  the  magazines,  in  which  he  indorses  this 
plan  that  I  had  presented  originally  in  May,  1918,  to  the  President  and  to 
the  Congress. 

So  you  can  see  it  has  nothing  of  partisanship  in  it.  It  is  a  plan  for  the 
development  of  our  country  in  a  very  large  and  in  a  very  real  way.  It  is  a 
practical  plan.  We  know  that  it  is  practical,  because  what  we  propose  shall 
be  done,  has  been  done,  and  is  being  done. 

It  is  a  plan  that  involves  the  reclamation  of  lands  of  various  kinds.  I 
recognize  most  of  you  as  gentlemen  from  the  West,  and  you  know  that  for  16 
years  now  you  have  been  passing  upon  the  various  reclamation  projects  that 
have  been  brought  before  you.  That  work  we  have  carried  on  with  more 
or  less  success  in  a  pioneer  field.  This  is  an  extension  and  an  elaboration  of 
the  idea  upon  which  the  reclamation  act  was  founded. 

The  reclamation  law,  as  you  know,  provided  that  we  should  take  the  arid 
lands  of  the  West  and  put  water  upon  them.  It  was  at  first  thought  that  it 
was  only  necessary  to  divert  the  water  from  the  stream. 

Later  we  found  it  was  necessary  to  build  great  dams  up  in  the  mountains 
and  to  bring  those  waters  down  through  diverging  canals  and  through  tunnels 
and  through  ditches  into  lands  50,  60,  or  70  miles  away  from  the  place  where 
the  water  was  stored.  You  gentlemen  have  been  liberal  in  your  appropria- 
tions for  that  work.  We  have  spent  approximately  $115.0< lO.oi MI  in  the  last 
15  years  on  it.  The  works  built  under  the  reclamation  law  are  no\v  serving 
probably  2,000,000  acres  under  irrigation,  comprising  land  that  was  worth  only 
a  nominal  sum  before  it  was  irrigated. 

It  has  always  been  a  mystery  to  me  why  Congress,  in  its  wisdom,  did  not  see 
lit  to  extend  the  same  principle  to  the  lands  of  the  South  and  the  lands  of  the 
North.  We  have  a  vast  body  of  undeveloped  land  in  the  United  States. 
This  is  an  incomplete  country.  It  will  he  hundreds  of  years  before  it  is 
entirely  developed,  but  we  know  now  that  there  are  millions  of  acres  of  land 
in  the  United  States  that  can  be  saved  ultimately  from  worthlessness  and 
brought  into  value  and  made  a  permanent  part  of  the  United  States  by  drain- 
age, by  clearing  off  stumps  and  brush,  and  by  reclamation  through  irrigation. 

A  clear  distinction  should,  of  course,  be  made  between  the  ultimate  possi- 
bilities of  such  reclamation,  spread  over  many  decades,  and  the  practical  pos- 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  •  35 

sibilities  of  the  next  few  years.  We  know  that  there  are  many  millions  of 
acres  of  unused  ami  unproductive  land  in  this  country.  It  is  self-evident,  how- 
ever, that  much  of  this  land  is  not  feasible  for  reclamation  purposes  under 
present  conditions.  In  many  cases  the  present  cost  of  reclamation  would  be 
prohibitive;  in  others  the  soil  conditions  appear  unf avoraable ;  in  others  a 
combination  of  factors  make  such  reclamation  practically  impossible  at  the 
present  time  and  under  present  economic  conditions. 

An  appropriation  of  $100,000,000  would  provide  for  the  construction  of 
projects  containing  approximately  20,000  farms,  or,  as  a  rough  estimate, 
a  total  of  only  about  1,500,000  acres  of  cultivated  land.  There  are  at  present 
in  the  United  States  nearly  7,000,000  farms,  so  that  the  addition  of  these  20,000 
farms  would  mean  an  increase  of  less  than  one-third  of  1  per  cent.  The  im- 
proved land  in  farms  amounts  to  something  like  550,000,000  acres,  so  that  the 
addition  of  1,500,000  acres  to  this  area  already  under  cultivation  could  amount 
to  less  than  three-tenths  of  1  per  cent.  If  continued  for  10  years,  the  increase 
would  be  only  3  per  cent,  while  the  population  is  increasing  five  or  six  times 
as  fast.  It  can  readily  be  seen  that  there  is  little  cause  for  alarm  that  over- 
production and  depression  of  prices  of  farm  products  would  result  from  the 
construction  proposed  at  the  present  time. 

I  have  been  through  the  South  lately.  It  is  a  marvelous  country;  it  was  a 
new  country  to  me.  I  had  no  understanding  of  that  land.  They  have  in  North 
and  South  Carolina  a  5^5-inch  rainfall  during  the  year,  which  is  distributed 
in  such  a  way  that  it  is  possible  to  get  three  crops ;  but  they  are  not  self- 
supporting,  because  they  devote  themselves  very  largely  to  one  money  crop — 
cotton — and  possibly  tobacco. 

There  is  an  Alabama  woman  named  Mrs.  Mathis,  who  is  one  of  the  real 
citizens  of  this  country.  She  is  a  farmer,  and  she  discovered  some  years  ago 
the  trouble  with  Alabama,  with  quantities  of  splendid  rich  land.  The  whole 
country  is  a  cotton  plantation,  and  they  were  bringing  down  their  beef  and 
their  mutton  and  their  ham  and  their  bacon  and  their  wheat  from  Kansas 
City.  So  this  woman  said : 

"  Why  not  divide  our  land  up  and  have  three  subdivisions  in  each  farm,  one 
devoted  to  supporting  the  farmer  and  his  family,  providing  truck  and  fruit  and 
taking  care  of  the  cow ;  another  part  given  over  to  the  money  crop,  to  tobacco 
or  peanuts  or  cotton;  and  the  third  devoted  to  sustaining  cattle?" 

The  only  official  position  this  woman  has  held,  so  far  as  I  know,  is  to  be  the 
nominal  representative  of  the  Alabama  Bankers'  Association.  The  result  of  her 
position  has  been  that  she  has  really  changed  Alabama  into  a  State  that  is  self- 
sufficient  ;  and  the  same  thing  can  be  done  in  every  one  of  these  Southern  States. 
I  made  a  trip  from  here  to  the  southern  end  of  Florida.  On  the  15th  day  of 
December  I  picked  an  ear  of  green  corn,  what  the  South  calls  a  "  roastin'  "  ear, 
and  the  seed  had  been  planted  on  the  15th  day  of  October.  There  is  no  reason 
why  we  should  not  have  in  Washington,  in  midwinter,  green  corn  from  Florida. 

I  believe  I  could  safely  undertake  to  say  that  the  territory  from  here  to  the 
southern  end  of  Florida  could  sustain  the  entire  population  of  the  United  States, 
because  not  half,  not  one-third,  of  that  land  that  is  cultivable  is  cultivated. 
Much  of  it  that  is  cultivated  is  cultivated  poorly. 

Along  the  coast — and  you  gentlemen  who  know  anything  about  this  country 
know  this  to  be  true — along  the  coastal  plain  there  have  been  great  pine  forests 
that  have  been  cut  down.  This  is  true  in  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina, 
Georgia,  Florida,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Louisiana,  and  eastern  Texas ;  there 
are  also  great  bodies  of  these  lands  in  Arkansas  and  in  Tennessee.  That  land 
very  largely  needs  to  be  reclaimed  by  a  very  simple  process  of  drainage. 

I  saw  a  few  acres  of  swamp  land  in  North  Carolina ;  it  is  marked  upon  the 
Government  map  as  swamp,  a  great  green  swamp.  They  are  cutting  down 
the  timber  on  it.  In  the  very  heart  of  this  swamp  I  saw  what  they  call  stuck 
corn.  A  plow  never  had  been  through  this  land;  there  had  never  been  a  hoe 
upon  it.  The  land  was  entirely  fresh.  Boys  had  passed  along  the  land,  in  a 
row,  and  with  a  stick  made  a  hole  6  inches  deep  in  the  ground  and  dropped  in  a 
couple  of  seeds  of  corn ;  and  they  had  bins  full  of  this  corn,  which  had  been 
grown  in  that  way.  That  is  the  kind  of  land  we  want  to  reclaim.  And  we  can 
reclaim  it  by  a  simple  system  of  drainage  canals  and  ditches. 

Gentlemen,  there  are  40,000,000  acres  of  tillable  land  between  here  and  east- 
ern Texas,  as  good  land  as  is  under  the  sun,  totally  unused. 

We  have  the  land ;  we  have  it  in  every  part  of  this  country,  in  the  North  as 
well  as  in  the  South.  One  of  the  richest  parts  of  the  United  States  is  Aroostook 
County,  Me.  Maine  has  been  deserted  in  part  in  her  farming  regions  because 


36  .  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

the  boys  have  had  a  lust  for  the  western  country  that  I  love,  and  I  can  not 
blame  them  for  that;  but  they  have  left  good  farms  there.  In  Massachusetts 
it  may  surprise  you  to  know,  perhaps,  that  we  have  one  little  section  of  country 
around  Cape  Cod  where  there  is  some  of  the  richest  land  in  the  United  States, 
and  it  has  been  proved  so  in  the  last  two  or  three  years ;  and  in  the  body  of  the 
State  they  have  very  considerable  quantities  of  land  that  needs  to  be  cared  for 
a  little  bit,  cut-over  land  that  has  been  deserted,  that  needs  to  be  brought  into 
shape,  that  will  make  good  farm  land.  The  same  thing  is  true  in  New  York. 

I  was  looking  over  yesterday  a  plat  of  New  York  which  showed  three  drain- 
age possibilities  in  that  State,  and  we  can  get  a  project  there  of  60,000  acres  of 
extremely  rich  land  that  needs  only  to  be  drained. 

There  are  in  the  United  States  millions  of  acres  of  unused  and  unproductive 
land,  much  of  which  it  is  entirely  feasible,  under  present  conditions,  to  irri- 
gate, drain,  or  otherwise  reclaim  and  bring  into  use.  As  I  have  just  said,  I  do 
not,  of  course,  propose  that  we  shall  undertake  the  huge  job  of  making  all  that 
land  serviceable  in  the  next  few  years  to  the  people  of  this  country  and  to  the 
world.  But  I  do  propose  that  we  shall  make  a  beginning  at  it,  and  what  better 
opportunity  can  there  be  than  this,  when  the  boys  are  coming  back? 

There  is  a  doubt,  perhaps,  in  your  minds  as  to  whether  these  boys  want  to 
go  upon  the  lands.  I  am  not  satisfied  with  the  situation  as  it  is  to-day  in  the 
United  States,  and  I  think  you  men  who  have  vision,  who  can  look  forward  two, 
three,  four,  five,  or  six  months,  must  yourselves  feel  that  you  have  a  responsi- 
bility in  regard  to  this  matter  that  you  can  not  be  indifferent  to.  There  is  no 
man  here  who  would  rise  and  say  that  he  feels  sure  that  the  labor  market  will 
be  satisfactory  six  months  from  now  or  three  months  from  now,  or  that  there 
will  be  a  job  waiting  for  the  soldier  who  returns,  when  he  gets  to  New  York, 
or  when  he  reaches  his  home.  What  are  we  going  to  do  for  these  men?  We 
can  not  have  them  floating  about  the  United  States  looking  for  something  to  do 
This  is  no  time  for  that  condition  in  this  country  or  in  any  other  country. 

There  is  only  one  way  of  meeting  a  situation  like  that,  and  that  is  by  pre- 
vision ;  you  have  got  to  see  what  is  going  to  come  before  it  actually  arrives ;  you 
have  got  to  have  the  cunning  sense  of  the  aviator  who  knows  he  is  going  to  meet 
an  air  current  before  he  actually  strikes  it,  and  adapts  himself  to  it. 

We  have  an  incomplete  country ;  we  have  an  undeveloped  country ;  we  need 
tens  of  thousands  of  miles  of  good  roads  in  the  United  States.  I  am  not  saying 
to  you  gentlemen  that  all  the  money  you  should  put  into  providing  work  for 
these  men  against  a  probable  surplus  of  labor  should  be  put  into  this  scheme ; 
but  I  believe,  and  I  say  it  to  you  very  seriously,  that  you  ought  to  be  pre- 
pared— and  upon  you  rests  the  initial  responsibility — you  ought  to  be  prepared 
to  have  some  work  available  to  which  you  can  assign  a  man  who  comes  back 
from  France  or  from  one  of  the  cantonments,  and  who  has  not  a  job  awaiting 
him. 

The  time  is  coming — yes,  it  has  come — when  we  must  feel  a  real  responsibility 
for  providing  not  merely  for  returned  soldiers  but  for  the  man  in  the  United 
States,  no  matter  who  he  may  be,  who  is  willing  to  work.  I  want  to  say  to  this 
Congress,  to  the  Congresses  that  are  to  come,  and  to  this  Nation  that  no  man 
who  is  willing  to  work  should  be  without  a  job,  and  I  will  agree  personally  to 
provide  the  work  which  will  give  the  man  a  job  and  add  to  the  wealth  of  this 
Nation  if  you  will  adopt  that  policy.  It  is  the  wise  policy  to  adopt  if  we  are 
to  have  a  chance  in  the  United  States  to  prove  that  democracy  is  the  kind  of 
government  that  the  world  wants.  [Applause.] 

These  boys  are  coming  home,  and  they  are  coming  home  with  the  idea  in  their 
heads  that  the  United  States  will  see  that  they  have  something  to  do ;  they  are 
coming  home  with  the  idea  in  their  heads  that  what  they  want  to  do  is  not  to 
work  in  an  office  but  to  work  in  the  open.  My  boy  has  come  home.  When  he 
left  he  was  in  the  university.  He  went  into  the  Aviation  Corps,  and  has  born  in 
France  a  year.  From  the  university  his  intention  was  to  go  to  the  law  school 
and  become  a  lawyer.  He  has  abandoned  the  idea  of  the  university  :  ho  says 
he  is  too  old  now  to  go  to  a  university.  He  was  only  18  when  he  left.  Ho  will 
not  go  into  law,  and  I  asked  him  what  he  was  going  to  do.  He  wants  to  go  out 
West  somewhere  and  go  on  a  farm. 

I  have  hundreds  of  letters  hero,  and  I  ;mi  going  to  send  extracts  from  some 
of  them  to  you  which  boys  have  sent  to  me  regard  ing  this  proposition  from 
France  and  from  the  cantonments  in  the  United  States. 

We  are  mooting  exactly  the  same  tiling  that  wo  met  in  the  Civil  War.  1  '.!o 
not  see  any  Civil  \Var  veterans  here,  but  you  can  probably  recall-  and  it  must 
be  SO,  because  it  appears  in  the  records  of  the  Land  (Hiiro— that  the  boys  of 


HOMES  FOR  SOLDIERS.  37 

the  different  States  wanted  to  live  the  life  in  the  open;  and  it  was  these  boys 
who  largely  settled  in  and  made  the  western  prairie  country,  and  the  country  I 
come  from  in  the  Far  West.  The  great  rush  to  the  Pacific  coast  came  along  in 
the  seventies.  And  now  our  boys  are  all  coming  back  in  the  same  way,  in  the 
same  spirit,  with  the  same  desire,  and  the  same  kind  of  peculiar  self-respect 
as  that  of  the  man  who  came  back  from  South  Africa  whom  Kipling  tells  us 
about  in  his  "  Chant  Pagan." 

It  is  the  story  of  a  man  who  comes  back  to  be  a  butler  or  a  gardener  in  an 
English  house.  He  has  been  in  the  Boer  War.  He  reviews  his  own  personal 
record  in  South  Africa  and  then  he  says,  "  Me,  that  has  been  what  I  have  been ; 
me,  that  has  seen  what  I  have  seen ;  they  ask  me  to  carry  a  letter  as  far  as  the 
post  office  and  be  sure  to  return  without  getting  my  feet  wet."  He  has  an 
entirely  new  vision  of  his  own  value,  and  he  has  an  entirely  different  desire  from 
that  which  he  formerly  had  as  to  the  kind  of  life  he  should  lead. 

I  had  a  letter  yesterday  from  a  man  in  France.  He  said  he  had  been  talking 
the  matter  over  with  the  boys  in  his  regiment  and  that  probably  80  per  cent 
of  them  would  like  to  go  on  to  farms.  We  have  a  little  hospital  which  is  sup- 
ported by  the  people  in  the  Interior  Department,  and  we  find  that  about  four 
men  out  of  ten  of  these  convalescent  boys  want  to  go  upon  farms.  Even  the 
women  are  stirred  up  about  it.  These  girls  we  induced  as  war  workers  to  go 
into  the  fields  are  anxious  that  there  should  be  one  of  these  projects  where 
women  could  prove  themselves  as  farmers. 

The  secret  of  this  whole  proposition,  aside  from  the  land  and  the  willingness 
of  the  boys  to  go  upon  the  land,  lies  in  the  type  of  the  settlement,  in  the  fact 
that  we  must  not  abandon  the  farmer  once  we  have  given  him  land.  Serious 
thought  must  be  devoted  to  the  development  of  a  farm  settlement  project.  In 
the  past  it  has  taken  about  three  crops  of  men — this  is  about  the  wastage,  and 
I  think  you  gentlemen  from  the  West  will  agree  with  me  on  this — it  has  taken 
about  three  crops  of  men  to  develop  a  quarter  section  of  land.  The  first  man 
has  come  on  as  the  pioneer  and  taken  up  his  quarter  section.  He  has  lived 
as  long  as  he  could,  and  he  has  endured.  Of  course,  he  has  had  the  benefit  of 
the  game  and  he  has  lived  a  hardy  life.  He  has  broken  a  bit  of  the  land,  but 
after  a  time  his  money  is  gone,  another  crop  of  settlers  comes,  and  he  sells  out. 
The  next  man  struggles  as  long  as  he  can,  and  finally  the  third  man  comes  and 
that  third  man  stays  with  the  land. 

We  want  to  develop  a  system  by  which  men  can  go  to  and  stay  upon  farm 
community  settlements  which  will  be  planned.  And  this  absence  of  previous 
planning  is  the  weakness  of  the  present  haphazard  method,  or  lack  of  method, 
in  settlement  all  over  this  country.  Woman  has  the  key  to  the  whole  situation. 
She  has  got  to  be  satisfied,  and  she  will  not  be  satisfied  as  long  as  she  lives  in 
isolation. 

Our  insane  asylums  in  the  West  are  filled  with  the  wives  of  farmers  who 
have  gone  crazy  in  the  dreary  isolation  of  farm  life.  We  want  to  have  upon 
each  one  of  these  projects  a  community  settlement,  and  have  the  farms  radiate 
out  from  that  settlement,  all  brought  in  just  as  near  as  possible  to  the  one  center, 
and  from  that  center  roads  radiating  out  to  the  farms.  In  that  settlement 
should  be  a  good  schoolhouse,  not  a  one-story  affair,  but  a  good  schoolhouse 
which  would  be  the  very  center  and  heart  of  the  whole  community,  a  schoolhouse 
that  would  be  tied  up  to  these  farms  that  encircle  it,  where  the  boy  would  learn 
as  much  as  he  learns  on  some  of  our  Indian  reservations  now.  And,  incidentally, 
this  is  more  than  is  taught  in  most  of  the  American  public  schools,  for  we  try 
in  the  best  Indian  reservations  to  teach  the  boy  how  to  plant  and  raise  four 
<T(I]IS.  how  to  shoe  a  horse,  how  to  put  up  a  shack;  and  we  teach  the  girls  how 
in  make  one  suit  of  clothes  for  herself,  how  to  make  a  hat,  how  to  care  for  a 
sick  baby,  how  to  care  for  a  sick  man,  and  how  to  cook  all  her  own  meals  for  a 
month.  We  ought  to  have  a  central  school  in  every  one  of  the  settlements  where 
these  children  would  be  tied  up  to  the  farm  life,  and  the  father  would  realize 
that  the  problems  which  the  boy  has  in  school  are  problems  which  deal  directly 
with  the  production  on  the  farm. 

In  that  settlement  there  should  be  a  good  moving-picture  house;  there  should 
In-  a  good  ball.  It  should  be  the  center  of  the  social  life  and  the  center  of  the 
economic  life  of  the  whole  settlement. 

W<-  have  got  much  to  learn  about  marketing.  Our  farmer  is  a  poor  cooperator. 
He  does  not  know  how  to  get  together  with  a  mass  of  men  and  work  together  for 
a  common  end.  The  price  of  crops  does  not  have  to  fall  because  there  are  more 
crops  produced,  if  growers  know  how  to  market  their  produce.  That  is  proved 
conclusively  by  the  experience  of  our  citrus  growers  in  southern  California. 


38 


HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 


When  I  knew  that  crop  originally  it  was  12,000  carloads  a  year,  and  the  farms 
were  falling  in  value.  Those  wise  men,  who  came  from  the  East  to  southern 
California,  who  knew  nothing  about  raising  citrus  fruit,  said  "  This  is  not  busi- 
ness. We  are  sending  our  oranges  and  lemons  into  places  which  are  already 
congested  with  oranges  and  lemons,  and  the  result  is  our  bills  all  come  back 
in  the  red." 

After  the  transportation  and  the  commission  merchant's  charges  were  paid 
off  they  got  no  return  for  the  oranges  and  lemons.  What  did  they  do?  They 
employed  a  man  who  knew  his  business  as  traffic  manager  at  $15,000  a  year.  A 
group  of  farmers  employed  that  man  and  they  also  employed  an  expert  on  dis- 
eases whom  they  got  from  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  and  they  sent  him  to 
Spain  and  to  Sicily  to  find  out  what  diseases  they  were  threatened  with  and  how 
to  cure  them. 

Then  they  built  a  series  of  warehouses  for  themselves  and  put  all  their  crop 
through  a  sieve.  They  graded  it  and  made  arrangements  with  the  railroad  by 
which  all  their  oranges  could  be  tested  out  in  the  different  markets,  and  if  there 
was  a  glut  in  one  market  the  car  would  go  to  a  market  where  there  was  a 
demand,  with  the  result  that  to-day  there  are  65,000  carloads  of  citrus  fruits 
coming  out  of  that  State.  And  the  same  thing  is  being  done  in  Florida  to  some 
extent.  It  can  be  done  in  Idaho  and  every  section  of  this  country.  You  can 
not  make  the  United  States  simply  improve  itself.  You  have  got  to  put  thought 
into  it  and  the  man  on  the  farm  has  got  to  put  thought  into  it. 

Now,  then,  we  have  the  boy,  we  have  the  land,  we  have  the  scheme,  and  we 
do  not  want  to  leave  that  fellow  alone  unprotected  there  to  work  out  his  own 
salvation.  We  want  to  give  that  boy,  in  the  first  instance,  an  education  as  to 
the  kind  of  agriculture  he  is  to  carry  on,  and  then  we  want  to  leave  with  him 
a  sensible  man  who  will  give  him  directions  so  that  the  scheme  will  be  worked 
out  clearly,  so  that  he  simply  will  not  be  thrown  into  the  world  and  forgotten. 

It  is  a  perfecty  simple  thing  to  do.  Every  one  of  the  agricultural  colleges 
you  support  in  all  the  States  can  provide  men  who  know  that  particular  piece 
of  land  and  who  will  stay  on  there  as  production  managers  to  give  advice  to 
these  men  as  to  what  is  the  best  crop  this  year  and  next  year,  so  far  as  main- 
taining the  fertility  of  the  soil  is  concerned,  and  how  the  crop  shall  be  culti- 
vated. We  have  tried  this  thing ;  we  know  it  can  be  done. 

Now.  gentlemen,  I  have  asked,  and  I  think  Mr.  Byrnes,  of  South  Carolina, 
has  put  in  an  amendment  to  the  appropriation  bill  for  an  appropriation  of 
$100,000,000  for  this  plan.  My  only  regret  about  that  is  that  the  amount  is  so 
small.  It  is  ridiculously,  absurdly  small.  If  we  contributed  in  the  proportion 
as  Australia  has  contributed  to  the  same  kind  of  a  proposition  we  would  be 
appropriating  to-day  $4,000,000,000.  Canada  makes  an  offer  of  160  acres  of 
land,  and  an  additional  160  acres  as  a  possibility,  and  $2,500  plus  $500,  $3,000 
in  all,  to  her  returning  soldier.  Canada  has  erred  in  just  one  respect,  I  think, 
in  that  she  has  not  planned  the  farm  and  the  farm  settlement.  She  has  been 
wise  in  giving  her  men  an  education,  even  while  they  are  in  the  field.  They 
have  had  behind  the  lines  what  they  called  the  Vimy  Ridge  Agricultural  Col- 
lege, in  which  men  still  in  the  Army  are  being  given  an  education,  and  were 
being  given  an  education  two  years  ago,  against  the  day  of  their  return  to 
Canada. 

I  do  not  know  whether  you  gentlemen  realize  what  war  costs.  You  know 
what  appropriations  you  have  made;  you  know  that  you  were  spending  at  the 
conclusion  of  this  war  over  $50,000,000  a  day  for  the  conduct  of  the  war.  I 
would  like  to  see  you  give  me  at  least  what  war  costs  for  a  week.  Just  throw 
out  the  Sunday  and  give  to  me  what  it  cost  for  the  other  six  days  to  try  and 
take  care  of  these  men  of  our  country,  to  make  them  more  comfortable,  more 
resourceful,  and  more  contented. 

We  are  going  to  have  great  problems  in  this  country  in  the  next  few  years, 
and  the  best  kind  of  man  whom  we  can  have  in  the  United  States  is  the  man 
who  is  anchored  to  our  soil  and  has  some  satisfaction  in  his  home.  There  is 
no  way  by  which  you  can  do  this  for  less  money  than  the  way  I  have  pointed 
out  to  you.  Let  us  give  to  these  men,  on  40-acre  farms  or  50-acro  farms,  not 
merely  the  bare  land,  but  a  home  upon  the  land,  the  cottage,  the  barn,  the  hind 
fenced  in,  the  land  plowed,  the  first  crop  put  in,  the  necessary  farm  implements, 
and  have  the  place  ready  so  he  and  his  wife  can  move  in  immediately  and  go 
to  work  upon  that  place.  Let  it  be  a  place  where  the  man  can  live  comfortably 
and  make  a  decent  living  and  be  proud  of  it. 

I  would  take  all  these  boys  personally  and  say  to  them,  "If,  after  you  have 
gone  to  your  homes,  and  do  not  find  the  old  job  all  ready  and  open  for  you.  then 


HOMES   FOE  SOLDIERS.  39 

here  is  a  job  for  you.  We  will  pay  you  the  current  rate  of  wages  while  you  are 
clearing  this  ground,  while  you  are  removing  the  stumps  and  undergrowth, 
while  you  are  draining  this  swamp,  digging  that  ditch  or  building  that  dam 
in  the  Far  West;  we  will  give  you  good  wages,  we  will  take  care  of  you  in 
a  barracks  that  will  look  palatial  to  you. 

"  Then,  after  you  have  worked  for  a  year  or  two  years  upon  that  project, 
pick  out  your  farm.  You  have  joined  in  digging  the  ditch  that  makes  the  farm 
possible;  you  will  have  joined  in  building  that  which  makes  the  farm  habita- 
ble." We  will  set  up  a  demand  for  agricultural  implements  and  a  great  many 
other  things  that  will  stimulate  the  industries  back  home  so  that  there  will 
not  be  so  many  fellows  back  there  that  will  need  to  be  taken  care  of.  Then 
This  boy  can  move  out  on  that  farm  and  be  prepared  to  make  a  living  for  him- 
self and  for  his  family  ;  and  he  should  not  be  called  upon  to  pay  for  the  farm 
immediately.  We  want  him  to  be  allowed  40  years  in  which  to  pay  for  it,  but 
in  the  end  he  will  pay  every  cent  of  it  and  pay  interest  on  the  money.  The 
soldier  does  not  ask  any  charity,  and  we  are  not  going  to  get  a  strong,  virile 
people  by  giving  charity,  by  doing  things  for  them,  except  giving  them  op- 
portunities ;  and  that  is  that  we  propose  this  Government  shall  give  these  men, 
an  opportunity  to  make  farms  for  themselves,  to  make  a  living  for  themselves, 
and  then  to  pay  back  to  the  Government  the  money  which  the  Government 
has  advanced,  and  to  pay  that  money  back  plus  interest.  They  can  do  it, 
easily,  paying  4  per  cent  interest,  in  40  years. 

We  are  paying  this  year,  gentlemen,  and  you  may  not  realize  this,  $221,- 
000,000  in  pensions  for  the  war  that  closed  54  years  ago  and  for  the  Spanish 
American  War.  When  I  came  into  office  six  years  ago  the  pensions  ran  up 
to  .$180,000,000.  There  were  300,000  Civil  W7ar  veterans,  practically,  still  alive, 
but  by  the  deaths,  which  come  along  at  the  rate  of  about  30,000  a  year,  that 
sum  was  reduced  to  $170,000,000.  Last  year  by  the  additon  of  different  bills 
you  appropriated  $187,000,000.  This  year  you  have  raised  it  so  that  we  are 
paying  now.  or  practically  during  the  next  fiscal  year  we  will  pay,  under  our 
estimates,  $221,000,000  for  pensions. 

This  scheme  that  I  present  is  far  better  than  any  pension  scheme  that  can 
be  presented.  It  is  a  scheme  by  which  you  make  American  men,  and  by  which 
you  make  American  land.  It  is  a  scheme  by  which  you  add  to  the  territory, 
the  available  useful  territory  of  the  United  States.  You  do  not  have  to  fight 
for  it,  you  do  not  have  to  shed  your  blood  for  it.  You  do  not  have  to  put  up 
$50.000,000  a  day  in  order  to  get  it.  You  do  not  have  to  rob  anybody  or  do  in- 
justice to  a  neighbor  in  order  to  get  it.  You  get  it  simply  by  the  expenditure 
of  your  own  money  in  advance  and  have  that  money  brought  back  to  you. 
Most  of  these  lands  are  lands  that  are  in  private  ownership,  and  those  lands 
can  he  had  at  our  own  appraisement  and  not  at  what  the  owners  think  they 
are  worth. 

We  have  been  through  every  State  and  we  find  there  is  a  practical  project 
in  almost  every  State.  In  every  State  there  is  a  body  of  men,  who  are 
solicitous  for  the  soldier,  who  believe  the  war  is  not  over  until  we  have  taken 
care  of  the  boys  on  their  return ;  these  men  own  large  tracts  of  land,  and  are 
willing  to  turn  that  land  over  to  us,  the  United  States  to  pay  nothing  for  it 
whatever  except  that  the  owners  of  the  land  shall  have  returned  to  them  what- 
ever we  appraise  that  land  to  be  worth,  the  money  to  come  in  within  the  40 
years,  when  we  get  our  money.  It  is  a  perfectly  practical  scheme.  We  looked 
over  the  map  yesterday,  and  I  suppose  in  some  of  the  States  there  are  as  many 
as  a  dozen  possible  projects  upon  that  basis. 

In  the  State  of  Florida  there  are  a  million  and  a  half  acres  owned  by  the 
State,  which  they  are  perfectly  willing  to  turn  over  to  us  on  this  basis,  we  to 
drain  them.  Up  in  Wisconsh/and  in  Michigan,  there  is  some  of  this  land  held 
by  the  lumber  companies  which  is  worthless  to-day,  not  being  used,  that  we  can 
get  at  our  own  figure,  the  lumber  companies  to  get  their  money  back  when  we 
get  it  ourselves,  and  not  until  then. 

In  the  West  the  great  bulk  of  this  land  is  public  land,  and  there  we  have  the 
basis  for  large  irrigation  projects,  as  our  plans  include  either  a  great  irrigation 
scheme  or  a  great  drainage  scheme  in  every  State  west  of  the  Missoui  River,  in 
every  State  in  the  South,  and  in  practically  every  other  State  except  Iowa, 
Illinois,  Indiana,  Ohio,  and  Pennsylvania,  and  we  may  later  be  able  to  develop 
projects  in  these  States. 

We  want  to  distribute  these  settlements  as  widely  as  possible  so  as  to  reveal 
the  method  by  which  farm  life  can  be  made  agreeable  as  well  as  successful, 
and  then  this  current  that  is  running  to-day  against  the  country  and  in  favor 


40  HOMES   FOR  SOLDIERS. 

of  the  city  will  run  the  other  way.  In  this  decade  that  has  passed,  from  1900 
to  1910,  the  movement  to  the  city  was  unprecedented,  and  the  relative  increase 
in  the  number  of  farms  was  the  smallest  in  the  history  of  this  country.  We 
have  got  to  stop  that  in  some  way.  You  can  not  afford,  as  statesmen,  to  let  the 
people  of  the  United  States  become  dependent  upon  foreign  countries  for  food 
supplies.  You  know  we  were  importing  beef  from  Argentine  before  this  war. 

You  can  not  afford  to  have  the  people  of  the  United  States  centered  as  they 
are  now  in  the  cities  of  the  United  States.  When  I  was  a  boy  we  had  in  this 
country  75  per  cent  of  our  population  on  the  farms,  or  in  farm  villages.  To-day 
we  have  not  50  per  cent.  More  than  one-half  of  our  people  are  living  in  the 
cities — and  living  upon  the  people  in  the  country — congested,  working  to  develop 
American  industry,  but  not  working  to  develop  those  fundamental  things  upon 
which  we  have  found  in  the  last  year  nations  depend. 

I  do  not  believe  there  is  any  doubt  but  that  we  will  have  the  men  to  do  this 
work,  and  there  is  no  fear  of  overproduction.  We  can  not  possibly  produce  more 
than  20,000  or  25,000  new  farms  out  of  this  amount  of  $100,000,000,  which  is  the 
largest  amount  we  have  dared  to  ask  for,  knowing  how  anxious  for  economy  you 
were.  We  can  not  possibly  give  employment  to  more  than  100,000.  There  is 
no  danger  of  taking  away  from  the  present  farmer  any  advantage  he  has. 
Twenty  thousand  new  farms  is  about  one-third  of  1  per  cent  of  the  number  of 
farms  there  are  now  in  the  United  States.  So  there  is  no  threat  against  the 
present  farmer  in  this  proposition. 

But  we  ought  to  have  work  for  the  man  when  he  comes  back,  and  if  times 
become  hard  three  months  from  now,  I  want  you  to  think  about  this  proposi- 
tion— that  in  Michigan  and  Wisconsin  we  can  put  at  work  just  as  many  men  as 
will  be  out  of  employment  in  the  great  Central  West,  and  down  in  North  and 
South  Carolina  and  Florida  and  Louisiana  we  can  put  more  men  at  work — 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  men,  if  need  be,  and  care  for  them.  All  that  will  be 
necessary  will  be  to  have  the  money.  \Ve  can  not  do  it  with  $100,000,000.  We 
can  take  care  of  a  few,  but  there  are  rare  possibilities  there,  and  you  gentlemen 
ought  to  think  of  it. 

It  is  an  opportunity  for  us,  an  opportunity  to  show  gratitude  towards  the  men 
who  made  the  great  sacrifice,  who  have  done  the  thing  you  and  I  were  willing 
to  do  but  that  we  did  not  have  the  chance  to  do,  because  Uncle  Sam  would  not 
take  us.  It  is  a  great  deal  better  that  we  should  extend  to  that  man  this  oppor- 
tunity to  make  his  own  living,  and  make  an  independent  living,  and  to  add  to 
the  wealth  of  this  country,  than  that  he  should  be  a  dependent  for  years  to  come, 
or  that  he  should  be  cast  adrift,  and  prove  once  more  that  republics  are  un- 
grateful. This  Republic  is  not  ungrateful.  It  never  has  been  ungrateful.  It  is 
the  most  liberal  and  generous  Government  that  the  world  has  ever  seen. 

But  we  are  not  asking  generosity  now.  We  are  asking  something  that  is  ulti- 
mately selfish. 

I  want  you  gentlemen,  if  you  will  be  so  good,  if  you  look  upon  this  as  I  do, 
if  you  believe  this  is  practicable,  as  the  President  and  Col.  Roosevelt  believe  it  is, 
if  you  believe  this  thing  is  wise,  that  it  is  a  statesmanlike  thing,  I  want  you  to 
see  that  the  members  of  the  Committee  on  Appropriations,  or  whatever  com- 
mittee has  charge  of  it,  shall  bring  it  to  the  front  at  once.  \Ve  can  not  wait.  We 
have  waited  too  long. 

I  made  this  suggestion  to  the  President  and  to  Congress  last  May.  We  ought 
to  have  taken  it  up  then.  The  time  is  ripe  now.  We  need  a  word  of  encourage- 
ment from  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  these  men  before  then? 
develops  in  them  any  feeling  that  the  Government  is  not  appreciative  of  what 
they  have  done.  It  has  got  to  be  done  some  time,  gentlemen;  why  not  now? 
You  have  been  thinking  in  large  sums  of  money ;  you  have  passed  in  a  day  bills 
appropriating  billions  of  dollars. 

Can  we  not  get  to  the  point  where  we  can  visualize  the  opportunities  and  neces- 
sities of  peace  as  well  as  the  necessities  of  war?  You  are  going  to  make  this 
continent  by  the  expenditure  of  large  sums  of  money,  and  it  is  going  to  support 
three  or  four  hundred  million  people;  you  will  have  200,000,000  before  this 
century  is  out.  We  are  growing  at  the  rate  of  about  sixteen  or  seventeen  million 
every  10  years,  or  we  were  before  the  war.  We  have  got  to  have  a  place  for 
these  people.  We  want  to  show  you  a  plan  by  which  they  can  be  taken  care  of. 

One-third  of  our  tillable  land  outside  of  the  mountains  is  already  oeeupied 
and  in  use.  We  want  to  see  that  the  other  two-thirds  is  used  and  used  by  men 
who  are  Americans,  who  are  tied  to  the  soil,  and  who  are  identified  with  us 
in  interest  as  well  as  in  heart. 


APPENDIX  B 


NATIONAL  SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT  ACT 

[House  Report  216,  Sixty-Sixth  Congress,  First  Session.] 


66th  CONGRESS,  1  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES.  (      5E 

1st  Session.       I  No. 


NATIONAL  SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT  ACT. 


216. 


A  UGUST  1, 1919. — Committed  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the 
Union  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 


Mr.  SINXOTT,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Public  Lards,  submitted 
the  following 

REPORT. 

[To  accompany  H.  R.  487.] 

The  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands,  to  whom  was  referred  the 
bill  (H.  R.  487)  providing  employment  and  rural  homes  for  those 
who  have  served  with  the  military  atd  naval  forces  through  the 
reclamation  of  lands  to  be  known  as  the  national  soldier  settlement 
act,  having  considered  the  same,  report  it  to  the  House  with  the 
recommendation  that  it  do  pass,  with  sundry  amendments  which 
appear  at  the  end  of  this  report. 

The  committee  has  given  the  most  patient  and  thorough  considera- 
tion to  the  matter  of  framing  a  comprehensive  constructive  program 
in  the  interest  of  our  returning  soldiers. 

Broadly,  the  problem  is  how  to  absorb  them  into  our  national 
life  on  terms  that  shall  be  satisfactory  to  them  and  profitable  to  the 
Nation.  Specifically,  the  problem  as  presented  in  all  of  the  bills 
referred  to  the  committee  is  how  to  furnish  them  with  immediate 
employment  and  to  open  the  way  to  self-sustaining  homes  on  the 
land,  and  how  to  furnish  them  with  the  necessary  capita). 

The  basis  of  the  discussion  has  been  H.  R.  487,  introduced  by  Rep- 
resentative Mondell,  of  Wyoming,  but  the  committee  has  encouraged 
the  freest  expression  of  opinion  on  every  aspect  of  the  subject.  As  a 
consequence,  the  testimony  has  covered  a  wide  range,  and  developed 
a  variety  of  opinior  .  But  there  is  one  thing  on  which  all  agreed: 
Something  should  be  done  for  the  soldier.  As  a  means  of  showing  how 
the  committee  has  reached  its  own  conclusions,  it  will  be  helpful 
briefly  to  review  various  propositions  which  have  been  advanced  as 
substitutes  for  the  legislation  proposed  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior,  indorsed  by  the  President,  and  embodied  in  several  bills 
that  have  come  to  the  committee. 


2  NATIONAL,  SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT  ACT. 

VARIOUS    SUBSTITUTES    PROPOSED. 

1.  A  bonus  for  all  soldiers. — This  has  been  proposed  in  three  differ- 
ent forms:  (a)  Three  hundred  dollars  for  each  enlisted  man,  which 
would  require  a  total  appropriation  of  $1,200,000,000;  (6)  a  bonus  of 
$25  per  month  for  each  month  in  service,  which  would  amount  to 
about  the  same  total  if  the  average  length  of  service  was  one  year; 
(c}  a  bonus  of  $5,000  for  each  soldier,  which  will  call  for  $20,000,000,- 
000. 

2.  Individual  farm  loans. — These  have  been  proposed  for  various 
amounts  and  purposes,  but  all  on  the  basis  of  the  "infiltration  plan," 
a  term  now  commonly  used  to  describe  the  method  of  individual 
settlement  on  scattered  farms,   as  distinguished  from   the  plan  of 
community  settlement.     It  has  been  proposed:  (a)  That  a  flat  sum  of 
$4,000  be  offered  to  each  soldier  for  the  purchase  of  an  approved  farm 
wherever  he  may  select  it,  such  advance  to  be  made  upon  the  basis  of 
100  per  cent  of  the  value,  at  4  per  cent  interest,  nayable  ir  40  years. 
If  all  soldiers  accepted  the  offer,  it  would  call  for  an  appropriation  of 
$16,000,000,000;  (h)  the  same  proposition  with  a  maximum  loan  of 
$10,000,  which  would  call  for  $40,000,000,000  if  accepted  by  all;  (c) 
the  same  proposition  extended  to  cover  advances  for  necessary  im- 
provements, hVe  stock,  and  equipment;  (d)   the  same  proposition, 
except  that  the  loan  shall  be  elastic  in  amount,  ranging  down  to  50 
per  cent  of  value. 

3.  Loans  for  city  or  country  homes. — That  even7  man  returned  from 
the  colors  be  offered  a  loan  of  $2,500  at  a  low  rate  of  interest  (4  per 
cent  suggested),  pa37able  o\er40  years'  time, provided  he  invest  the 
money  either  in  a^farm  or  in  acquiring  a  home  in  city  or  town. 
Assuming  the  unanimous  acceptance  of  this  proposition,  it  would  call 
for  SI 0,600,000,000. 

4.  Loans  for  oil  lines  of  business. — That  soldiers  desiring  to  engage 
in  any  line  of  business  be  provided  with  loans  of  various  amounts, 
ranging  up  to  100  per  cent  of  the  necessary  capital.     It  is  impossible 
to  estimate  the  appropriation  that  would  be  required,  but  the  idea  is 
for  the  Nation  to  supply  the  financial  backing  for  ever}7  soldier  who 
desires  to  engage  in  trade,  industry,  or  profession,  of  whatever  nature. 

5.  Advancing  money  to  the  States.— That  $500,000,000  be  appor- 
tioned among  the  several  States  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  men 
supplied  to  trie  colors,  and  that  the  States  be  permitted  to  use  the 
money  in  any  way  they  consider  best  for  the  soldier's  welfare.     The 
same  suggestion  was  made  on  the  basis  of  a  larger  but  indefinite 
appropriation. 

6.  Leave  it  to  private  capital. — That  the  matter  be  left  entirely  to 
private  capital  to  finance,  with  helpful  cooperation  on  the  part  of  the 
Government  in  safeguarding  any  proposition  for  investors  and  settlers. 

The  problem  of  dealing  with  disbanded  armies. — The  problem  we  are 
facing  is  not  new  in  human  history.  It  has  been  the  problem  of  all 
countries  after  all  great  wars,  and  it  is  preeminently  the  problem  of  all 
countries  to-day.  "From  Rome  under  Caesar,  to  France  under 
Napoleon,  down  even  to  our  own  Civil  War,"  said  Secretary  Lane  in 
his  letter  of  May  31,  1918,  to  the  President  and  Members  of  Congress, 
"  the  problem  arose  as  to  what  could  be  done  with  the  soldiers  to  be 
mustered  out  of  the  military  service." 


NATIONAL  SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT  ACT.  3 

There  are  two  considerations  to  be  borne  in  mind  in  dealing  with 
the  question:  The  first  is  the  welfare  of  the  soldier  hi <r self.  It 
is  incumbent  upon  Congress  to  see  that  no  man  who  offered  his 
life  to  protect  the  Nation  in  time  of  war  shall  come  to  want  in  time 
of  peace.  Every  soldier  who  needs  employment  upon  being  dis- 
charged from  the  Army  should  have  employment;  and,  so  far  as 
possible,  employment  at  some  congenial  task.  Moreo\  er,  it  will  be 
desirab'e  in  many  instances  to  provide  the  soldier  with  a  permanent 
occupation,  and  this  should  be  of  such  a  nature  as  to  lead  in  tho 
direction  of  genuine  economic  independence.  The  second  considera- 
tion to  be  observed  is,  of  course,  the  welfare  of  the  Nation. 

The  American  stock  is  of  the  colonizing  breed.  Not  only  the 
descendants  of  our  earliest  settlers  but  even  our  latest  immigrants 
belong  to  the  element  which  does  not  rest  content  with  existing 
conditions,  but  constantly  seeks  to  better  them  by  reaching  out  to 
new  opportunities  in  new  lands.  Our  great  patrimony  of  free  public 
lands  has  been  the  safety  valve  of  the  Republic  in  the  past.  Lord 
Macaulay  predicted  that  when  this  was  gone — "  then  will  come  the 
real  test  of  your  institutions."  If  there  was  any  measure  of  truth  in 
the  prediction,  the  present  moment  carries  a  challenge  to  the  genius 
of  American  statesmanship,  for  the  free  public  lands  suitable  for 
agriculture  without  irrigation  are  practically  gone.  Nevertheless,  if 
the  past  is  any  guide  for  the  present  and  the  future,  this  is  a  challenge 
which  must  be  accepted  in  order  that  the  Nation  shall  remain  sound 
and  wholesome,  and  that  man's  conquest  over  the  resources  of  nature 
shall  go  on  in  this  and  in  coming  generations. 

In  this  connection  it  is  worth  while  to  recall  how  the  veterans  of 
the  Revolution  made  their  way  through  the  almost  trackless  forests 
of  the  Alleghenies  and  planted  the  seeds  of  the  great  civilization  we 
now  behold  both  north  and  south  of  the  Ohio  River.  It  is  well  to 
recall  how  the  veterans  of  the  Civil  War  completed  the  occupation 
and  development  of  the  great  region  watered  by  the  Mississippi  and 
its  tributaries,  carrying  their  homes  and  farms  to  the  extreme  limit 
of  the  district  where  crops  are  assured  by  natural  rainfall,  and  to  the 
very  threshold  of  the  arid  region. 

There  is  another  lesson  which  it  is  very  important  for  us  to  learn 
from  the  past.  The  number  of  veterans  who  actually  availed  them- 
selves of  land  opportunities  at  the  close  of  former  wars  was  small  as 
compared  with  the  total  number  engaged.  Even  so,  the  invitation 
to  go  on  with  the  development  of  natural  resources  was  effective  not 
only  in  meeting  the  needs  of  the  discharged  soldier,  but  in  steadying 
the  whole  fabric  of  industry  and  society  at  the  most  critical  periods 
in  our  history. 

As  has  already  been  said,  the  problem  of  how  best  to  provide  for 
the  welfare  of  the  returning  soldier  is  not  our  problem  alone,  but 
equally  that  of  all  other  countries.  It  is  interesting  to  observe  that 
the  other  great  English-speaking  countries — -England,  Canada,  and 
Australia — are  turning  to  the  land  as  a  means  of  meeting  the  need  of 
the  hour.  England  has  a  density  of  population  equal  to  that  of  any 
American  State.  Its  last  acre  of  free  public  land  disappeared  cen- 
turies ago.  And  yet  England  is  finding  room  upon  her  crowded 
soil  to  make  more  homes  and  farms  for  her  soldier  boys,  and  she  is 
backing  them  in  the  new  adventure  with  her  money  and  credit. 


4  NATIONAL,  SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT  ACT. 

Canada  and  Australia  have  adopted  most  generous  policies  in  this 
regard,  as  fully  set  forth  in  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
on  H.  R.  487. 

LEADING   PRINCIPLES    OF    A    SOUND    POLICY. 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  considerations,  the  committee  has  decided 
that  it  is  unquestionably  the  duty  of  Congress  to  enact  legislation 
with  the  least  possible  delay  which  shall  make  provision  for  the  wel- 
fare of  returning  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines;  and  that  such  legis- 
lation should  be  based  on  these  principles: 

First.  The  continuation  of  our  historic  policy  of  opening  the  way 
to  work  and  homes  on  the  land  for  the  veterans  of  our  wars. 

Second.  In  the  absence  of  any  considerable  area  of  public  land 
suitable  to  the  purpose,  the  acquisition  of  lands  now  in  private  own- 
ership followed  by  such  improvement  as  may  be  necessary,  either  by 
clearing,  fertilizing,  draining,  or  irrigating,  in  order  to  render  them  fit 
for  the  best  forms  of  agriculture. 

Third.  The  employment  of  soldiers  wherever  practicable  in  all 
departments  of  the  work  to  be  done  on  the  basis  of  current  wages  to 
the  end  (a)  that  opportunities  for  remunerative  work  may  be  supplied 
to  those  who  need  or  desire  it,  and  (6)  that  the  soldiers  may  have 
opportunity  to  accumulate  the  amount  of  money  that  will  be  required 
as  first  payment  upon  property  subsequently  allotted  to  them. 

Fourth.  The  advance  of  limited  sums  of  money  to  be  used  by  the 
settlers  in  the  construction  of  permanent  improvements,  such  as 
houses,  barns,  and  fences,  and  of  other  limited  sums  for  the  purchase 
of  necessary  live  stock  and  equipment,  always  with  a  reasonable 
margin  of  security  for  the  Government. 

Fifth.  The  subdivision  of  lands  into  lots,  farm-workers'  tracts  and 
farms  and  the  disposal  of  such  property  upon  such  terms  as  shall,  in 
a  period  of  not  more  than  40  years,  reimburse  the  Government  for 
its  entire  outlay,  with  interest  at  4  per  cent  per  annum. 

Sixth.  The  provision  of  reasonable  safeguards  against  speculation 
in  farm  allotments,  to  the  end  that  permanent  homes  shall  be  made 
in  good  faith. 

.Seventh.  The  colonization  of  soldier  settlers  in  groups  of  sufficient 
size  to  enable  them  to  take  advantage  of  every  opportunity  for 
economy  and  efficiency  in  the  purchase  of  supplies  and  sale  of  products 
and  for  organized  social  life;  also  to  permit  them  to  receive  the  full 
benefit  of  community-created  values. 

Eighth.  The  absolute  solvency  of  the  entire  enterprise,  alike  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  Government  and  the  soldier  settler,  and  the 
authorization  of  a  total  expenditure  of  not  more  than  $500, 000,000, 
but  with  actual  appropriations  made  from  time  to  time  as  particular 
projects  shall  be  submitted  to  Congress  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior. 

SUBSTITUTE    PROPOSALS    CONSIDERED. 

The  adoption  of  these  fundamental  principles  necessarily  eliminates 
from  consideration  some  of  the  ideas  which  have  been  suggested  as 
substitutes  for  H.  R.  487. 

The  proposition  for  a  bonus  to  be  given  to  all  enlisted  men,  in- 
volving a  total  immediate  outlay  ranging  from  one  billion  to  twenty 
billion  dollars,  is  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  committee. 


NATIONAL  SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT  ACT.  5 

Practically  the  same  observations  apply  to  the  proposal  to  advance 
capital  for  the  purpose  of  setting  soldiers  up  in  any  and  every  line 
of  business.  Except  as  it  deals  with  lands  now  owned  or  hereafter 
to  be  owned  by  the  Government,  it  is  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
this  committee. 

The  proposal  to  leave  the  entire  question  of  providing  for  the 
soldiers'  welfare  to  private  enterprise  and  capital  is,  of  course,  in 
conflict  with  what  the  committee  regards  as  tne  plain  duty  of  Con- 
gress at  this  time,  while  the  proposition  to  advance  money  to  build 
or  purchase  homes  in  cities  and  towns  is  a  matter  which  should  be 
embodied  in  separate  legislation,  if  at  all.  In  that  case,  it  would  be 
the  business  of  some  other  committee. 

DANGERS    OF    INFILTRATION. 

The  infiltration  plan  is  different,  and,  upon  superficial  considera- 
tion, may  be  regarded  as  a  somewhat  satisfactory  substitute  for  H.  R. 
487.  On  careful  analysis,  however,  the  committee  has  been  unable 
to  adopt  it,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  it  undoubtedly  commands 
the  earnest  support  of  some  of  the  sincerest  friends  of  the  movement 
to  establish  the  soldiers  upon  the  land. 

In  the  first  place,  it  would  call  for  the  expenditure  of  a  vast  sum 
of  money  and  could  not  be  made  a  sound,  solvent  proposition  for 
the  Government,  at  least  if  it  authorized  a  loan  for  100  per  cent  of 
the  value  of  the  property  purchased,  while  if  it  did  not  authorize  a 
100  per  cent  loan  it  could  be  availed  of  only  by  soldiers  possessing  a 
considerable  amount  of  money.  This  is  true  because  it  docs  not  ofTer 
one  hour's  employment;  hence,  no  opportunity  whatever  for  the  sol- 
dier to  earn  and  accumulate  money  against  the  time  when  he  will 
enter  into  the  possession  of  his  farm.  For  the  same  reason  it  provides 
no  means  for  getting  the  necessary  live  stock,  implements,  and  other 
equipment,  or  the  necessary  working  capital. 

Tne  soldier  settler,  possibly  devoid  entirely  of  agricultural  knowl- 
edge, experience,  or  training,  would  be  suddenly  thrown  upon  a  farm 
subject  to  a  mortgage  of  100  per  cent,  without  a  horse,  a  cow,  or  a 
chicken;  without  plow,  harrow,  or  any  other  agricultural  tools,  and 
without  a  dollar  in  the  bank  to  enable  him  to  live  and  make  his  crop. 
At  least  that  would  be  the  precise  situation  in  very  many  instances; 
or,  if  not,  then  we  would  Lave  simply  shut  the  door  in  the  face  of  the 
soldier  whose  sole  assets  are  strong  arms  and  a  sturdy  heart — the 
very  man  who  merits  first  consideration. 

In  other  words,  the  infiltration  plan  fails  utterly  to  meet  the  situa- 
tion in  which  a  very  large  proportion  of  our  soldiers  find  themselves 
at  the  time  of  demobilization. 

It  is  argued  that  many  more  soldiers  would  purchase  farms  if  they 
could  borrow  100  per  cent  and  locate  wherever  they  chose,  than  would 
do  so  under  the  plan  of  community  settlement.  Undoubtedly  this  is 
true,  especially  if  they  are  permitted  to  sell  the  farm  at  any  time,  as 
is  proposed  by  most  of  the  advocates  of  infiltration. 

Analyze  this  argument  and  what  do  you  find  ?  First,  a  demand  for 
an  immediate  appropriation  of,  say,  $10,000,000,000.  This  figure  is 
named  by  the  advocates  of  the  plan  on  the  basis  of  an  average  loan 
of  85,000  and  the  expectation  that  at  least  2,000,000  men  would 
borrow  the  money,  buy  a  farm,  and  taKe  their  chances  in  working  it 


6  NATIONAL  SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT  ACT. 

or  trying  to  sell  at  a  quick  profit.  But  in  considering  the  effects  of 
the  policy  we  must  assume  that  the  entire  4,000,000  soldiers  would 
have  the  right  to  borrow  $5,000  each,  on  condition  that  they  im- 
mediately bought  farms. 

Now  suppose  it  were  announced  to-morrow  that  the  credit  of  the 
United  States,  to  the  extent  of  120,000,000,000,  the  aggregate  amount 
of  all  four  Liberty  loans,  has  been  made  available  for  this  purpose, 
what  would  be  the  effect  on  the  market  for  country  lands  ?  Nothing 
less  than  the  imagination  of  Jules  Verne  could  picture  the  result. 
We  should  witness  the  greatest  orgy  of  speculation  in  the  history  of 
the  world.  No  scheme  of  official  appraisement  that  could  be  devised 
could  possibly  protect  the  soldier  and  the  country  from  imposition 
in  the  sale  of  unfit  properties  at  exorbitant  prices.  The  law  of  supply 
and  demand  would  itself  go  very  far  to  boost  land  prices  out  of  sight, 
and  that  at  a  time  when  existing  land  values  are  at  the  highest  level 
in  the  history  of  the  United  States — three  times  as  great  as  in  1900, 
19  years  ago.  Four  million  buyers  standing  in  line  scattered  over 
every  State  and  every  county,  over  every  city,  town,  and  hamlet  from 
Maine  to  California,  from  the  Lakes  to  the  Gulf,  each  with  $5,000 
spot  cash  to  pay  for  a  farm.  It  staggers  the  imagination.  We  reel 
under  the  thought  of  the  consequences,  even  the  first  consequences, 
not  to  think  of  the  ultimate  outcome,  the  final  aftermath — the 
"morning  after." 

Even  under  normal  conditions,  without  artificial  inflation  of  prices 
already  extremely  high,  the  soldier  settler  purchasing  a  going  and 
paying  farm  in  an  established  community  would  be  at  a  disadvantage 
as  compared  with  a  soldier  who  takes  advantage  of  "  the  ground 
floor"  proposition  proposed  by  community  settlement.  Nothing 
works  more  inexorably  than  the  law  of  unearned  increment,  and  in 
every  well-established  community  this  law  has  already  ground  its 
grist.  On  the  other  hand,  where  large  tracts  of  unimproved  land 
are  acquired  and  put  in  condition  for  cultivation  by  wholesale  opera- 
tions, and  where  there  is  a  simultaneous  movement  of  hundreds  of 
families  practically  at  one  time,  followed  by  the  creation  of  many 
public  and  private  improvements,  the  law  of  unearned  increment 
works  to  the  advantage  of  the  settler. 

In  the  one  case  he  is  the  victim  of  the  law;  in  the  other,  the  bene- 
ficiary. In  the  one  case  he  pays  the  increment;  in  the  other,  he 
gets  it.  The  history  of  a  thousand  communities  throughout  the 
United  States  might  be  cited  in  confirmation  of  this  proposition,  but 
a  single  instance  will  suffice.  Let  anyone  consider  the  history  of 
Salt  Lake  Valley  in  Utah,  the  earliest  community  settlement  under- 
taken in  the  western  half  of  the  continent,  and  observe  how  the 
pioneer  settlers  were  enriched  to  the  extent  of  tens  of  millions  by 
this  principle,  and  he  will  certainly  be  convinced  of  the  soundness 
of  this  view. 

The  conclusive  argument  against  the  infiltration  plan,  rests,  how- 
ever, not  upon  what  might  happen  in  the  future,  but  upon  what 
actually  has  happened  in  the  past. 

Australia  has  led  the  way  in  formulating  policies  to  establish  homos 
on  the  land.  And  Australia  was  beguiled  by  the  plausible  argument 
put  forth  in  favor  of  infiltration.  Australia  tried  it,  found  it  an 
absolute  failure,  abandoned  it,  adopted  community  settlement  in 
its  place,  found  it  gloriously  successful,  and  is  now  extending  it 


NATIONAL  SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT  ACT.  7 

beyond  anything  dreamed  of  at  this  time  in  the  United  States. 
Why  should  we  adopt  the  model  that  failed  in  preference  to  the  model 
that  succeeded  ? 

According  to  Dr.  Elwood  Mead,  for  nine  years  in  charge  of  land 
settlement  in  Australia,  as  he  now  is  in  California,  Australia  found 
that  it  was  practically  impossible  for  the  government  to  exercise 
any  effective  supervision  over  settlers  located  on  scattered  farms. 
Official  supervision  of  settlers  looking  to  the  government  for  their 
entire  capital  is,  of  course,  not  only  prudent  but  essential;  first,  at 
the  time  when  farms  are  purchased,  and  then  over  the  long  period 
required  for  the  settler  to  get  firmly  established  on  a  solvent  basis. 
But  the  mere  overhead  cost  of  travel  and  salaries  for  government 
agents  proved  prohibitive.  There  was  constant  danger  that  settlers 
would  be  imposed  upon  in  the  sale  of  farms.  Every  man  who  had 
a  farm  for  sale  pursued  the  man  eligible  to  borrow  government  money 
for  the  purpose  of  buying  his  farm.  There  were  many  opportunities 
for  collusion  between  sellers,  buyers,  and  intermediary  agents.  The 
net  result  was  that  buyers  did  not  get  the  worth  of  their  money, 
while  the  government  was  unable  to  devise  any  system  of  effective 
protection  for  the  settler  or  itself. 

Precisely  the  same  difficulties  hampered  the  Government  in  its 
effort  to  look  after  the  settler  and  to  assist  him  to  succeed.  The 
system  was  inherently  unworkable.  Practically  the  same  experi- 
ence was  had  in  England,  and  in  consequence  of  the  lesson  learned 
at  the  cost  of  disappointment,  hardship,  and  pecuniary  loss,  England  " 
has  now  adopted  the  plan  of  community  settlement  for  the  benefit 
of  her  returning  soldiers,  fixing  the  minimum  unit  at  100  families. 

PROVISIONS    OF   THE   BILL. 

The  present  bill  has  been  perfected  after  consultation  with  many 
elements  of  citizenship  representing  many  different  parts  of  the 
United  States.  Soldiers,  statesmen,  sociologists,  men  of  large  affairs, 
practical  farmers,  gardeners,  live-stock  men,  experienced  adminis- 
trators of  the  immensely  successful  Mormon  colonization  work  in 
Utah — all  have  been  consulted,  in  the  hope  of  evolving  a  measure 
that  should  be  founded  on  sound  economic  principles,  yet  made 
sufficiently  elastic  to  fit  the  widely  varying  conditions  which  must 
be  dealt  with  in  different  parts  of  the  country. 

The  original  idea  was  to  develop  projects  hi  every  State  where 
feasible  opportunities  were  found,  and  the  latest  reports  are  to  the 
effect  that  such  projects  will  be  found  in  every  State.  The  ideal 
project  would  be  one  which  should  offer  a  sufficient  area  to  make 
possible  complete  community  development  and  thus  to  afford  the 
cooperation,  assistance,  encouragement,  and  stimulus  to  be  found  in 
a  well-organized  community.  The  bill,  however,  fixes  no  minimum 
unit  either  for  the  farm  or'the  project.  It  will  be  entirely  feasible, 
under  the  wide  discretion  granted  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior, 
acting  in  cooperation  with  State  authorities,  to  develop  a  small 
number  of  contiguous  farms.  In  this  connection  it  is  well  worth 
while  to  quote  the  testimony  of  Arthur  P.  Davis,  the  Director  of  the 
United  States  .Reclamation  Service: 

We  know  of  an  attractive  tract  in  Pennsylvania,  and  quite  a  number  in  the  State 
of  New  York:  In  Greene  County,  N.  Y.,  there  is  a  tract  that  I  had  better  describe 
133319—19 54 


8  NATIONAL,  SOLDIER   SETTLEMENT  ACT. 

as  being  typical  of  others  that  can  probably  be  found  in  other  parts  o:"  the  Northeast, 
where  the  settlement  is  supposed  to  be  rather  dense. 

Not  far  from  Albany,  in  the  Hudson  Valley,  is  an  area  of  eighteen  or  twenty  thou- 
sand acres,  already  in  farms,  and  with  farm  buildings.  The  farms  are  usua'ly  from 
154  to  400  acres,  and  most  of  them  are  under  cultivation,  but  the  majority  are  farmed 
by  tenants.  The  great  major  ty  of  the  farms  in  the  group  I  speak  of  are  listed  for  sale, 
and  I  should  say  that  the  majority  of  the  farms  that  are  offered  for  sale  could,  at  the 
time  I  looked,  last  December,  be  purchased  at  less  than  the  present  value  of  the 
improvements. 

Secretary  Lane  has  also  directed  attention  to  opportunities  in  the 
northeastern  States,  as  follows: 

We  have  the  hind;  we  have  it  in  every  part  of  this  country,  in  the  North  as  well  as 
in  the  South.  One  of  the  richest  parts  of  the  United  States  is  Aroostook  County,  Me. 
Maine  has  been  deserted  in  part  in  her  farming  regions  because  the  boys  have  had  a 
lust  for  the  western  country  that  I  love,  and  I  can  not  blame  them  for  that;  but  they 
have  left  good  farms  there.  In  Massachusetts  it  may  surprise  you  to  know,  perhaps, 
that  we  have  one  little  section  of  country  around  Cape  Cod  where  there  is  some  of  the 
richest  land  in  the  United  States,  and  it  has  been  proved  so  in  the  last  two  or  three 
years;  and  in  the  body  of  the  State  they  have  very  considerable  quantities  of  land  that 
needs  to  be  cared  for  a  little  bit — cut-over  land  that  has  been  deserted,  that  needs  to 
be  brought  into  shape — that  will  make  good  farm  land.  The  same  thing  is  true  in 
New  York. 

It  should  be  said  that  it  is  not  proposed,  as  some  critics  have 
averred,  to  divert  men  from  their  own  States  and  ask  them  to  settle 
in  ''district  swamps  and  deserts."  The  idea  is  to  find  opportunities 
of  employment  and  homemaking  in  their  own  States  and,  so  far  as 

Sracticable,  in  their  own  districts,  unless  they  prefer  to  go  elsewhere, 
ince  there  will  be  an  average  fund  of  something  more  than  $10,000,- 
000  available  for  each  State,  it  will  be  entirely  possible  to  have  many 
small  projects  in  a  given  State,  provided  favorable  opportunities  are 
found.  It  will  be  possible  also  to  create  industrial  settlements  near 
centers  of  population  where  groups  of  soldiers  engaged  as  wage  earners 
may  desire  to  make  homes  on  very  small  farms  and  perpetuate  the 
beneficent  scheme  of  war  gardens.  In  a  word,  the  soldier-settlement 
fund  is  designed  to  assist  soldiers  in  getting  homes  under  the  best 
conditions,  as  these  shall  develop  in  practical  administration. 

Attention  should  be  called  to  the  safeguards  which  will  surround 
the  expenditure  of  the  large  appropriation  authorized  in  this  bill. 
The  first  actual  appropriation  asked  for  will  be  very  small,  only 
sufficient  to  enable  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  negotiate  with 
various  State  commissions  and  enter  into  preliminary  contracts  for 
the  acquisition  of  the  needed  lands.  Each  particular  project  and 
contract  will  then  be  submitted  to  the  Committee  on  Appropriations 
and,  if  approved,  presented  for  the  action  of  Congress.  Under  this 
system  the  danger  of  serious  blunders  in  the  selection  of  projects 
would  be  very  small  indeed.  Four  different  agencies  will  be  brought 
into  action  before  a  dollar  is  expended  in  actual  development,  viz: 
First,  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  with  his  well-equipped  organiza- 
tion for  investigation,  acting  in  cooperation  with  the  farm  loan 
board  of  the  district;  second,  the  governors  and  their  State  commis- 
sions, who  will  doubtless  cooperate  with  important  civic  bodies  in 
their  various  States;  third,  the  Committee  on  Appropriations,  which 
must  consider  and  pass  upon  each  contract  and  project;  fourth,  both 
Houses  of  Congress,  who  must  actually  vote  the  appropriation  before 
the  money  can  be  expended. 


NATIONAL  SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT  ACT.  9 

The  project  having  been  developed  to  a  point  where  the  lands,  by 
restoration,  clearing,  drainage,  or  irrigation,  or  a  combination  of  these, 
were  in  fit  condition  for  utilization  for  farming,  the  area  would  be 
divided  into  farms  of  suitable  size  to  support  a  family,  and  the  price 
fixed  on  the  farms,  which  in  the  aggregate  will  pay  the  cost  of  the 
project,  the  price  of  each  farm  to  represent,  as  near  as  it  is  possible, 
its  value  compared  with  the  total  cost  and  the  value  of  the  other  farms. 

The  soldier  who  has  worked  upon  the  project  will  be  given  the 
preference  in  the  selection  of  farms,  and  a  payment  of  5  per  cent  of 
the  value  fixed  is  to  be  paid  at  the  time  the  farm  is  allotted.  Assum- 
ing the  average  value  of  So, 000  or  86,000  per  farm,  this  would  require 
an  initial  payment  of  $250  to  S300,  a  sum  which  the  soldier  could 
save  in  anticipation  of  the  projects  during  the  period  of  the  develop- 
ment of  the  project,  which  would  be  from  one  to  three  years. 

After  the  farms  have  been  allotted  assistance  is  to  "be  given  the 
soldier  in  the  making  of  his  improvements,  the  maximum  loan  pro- 
vided for  this  purpose  being  $1,500,  and  not  in  excess  of  three-fourths 
of  the  cost  or  value  of  improvements.  The  soldier's  contribution  to 
improvements  could,  and  undoubtedly  in  the  majority  of  cases  would, 
be  in  the  form  of  labor.  During  or  in  connection  with  the  making  of 
his  improvements  the  soldier  could  by  his  personal  efforts  and  work 
easily  contribute  his  25  per  cent  of  the  total  cost. 

Provision  is  also  made  for  loans  to  the  soldier  settler  for  the  pur- 
chase of  necessary  livestock  and  equipment.  The  maximum  of 
such  loans  being  $1,200,  or  75  per  cent  of  the  total  cost  of  necessary 
livestock,  and  60  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  equipment.  Here  again  the 
soldier's  obligations  under  this  class  of  loan  could  if  necessary  be  met 
by  his  individual  efforts.  In  fact,  while  it  is  assumed  that  in  many 
cases  the  soldier  would  have  some  savings  which  he  could  utilize 
in  getting  a  start,  it  is  believed  that  a  man  starting  at  the  beginning 
of  one  of  these  projects  without  any  capital  could,  through  industry 
and  frugality,  earn  and  save  enough  to  meet  his  initial  and  other 
payments  as  they  become  due. 

APPROVED    BY    PUBLIC    SENTIMENT. 

The  late  President  Theodore  Roosevelt  advocated  the  soldier  settle- 
ment policy,  as  proposed  by  Secretary  Lane,  in  the  last  article  which 
he  wrote  for  the  press.  President  Wilson  has  urged  it  upon  Congress 
in  two  messages.  The  governors  of  27  States  have  appointed  com- 
missions to  cooperate  with  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  and  all  of 
these  commissions  have  expressed  their  earnest  interest  in  legislation 
of  this  character. 

One  of  the  strongest  indorsements  of  the  bill  in  its  present  shape 
has  come  from  the  officers  of  the  Eastern  States  Agricultural  Indus- 
trial Exposition,  wrhich  has  its  headquarters  at  Springfield,  Mass., 
but  represents  10  Northeastern  States — the  six  States  of  New  England 
and  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  and  Delaware.  This 
organization  represents  some  of  the  strongest  business  interests  in 
the  country,  who  have  inaugurated  great  plans  looking  to  the 
systematic  renewal  and  restoration  of  a  prosperous  agriculture 
throughout  the  northeastern  part  of  the  United  States.  They  have 
discovered  the  very  intimate  relationship  between  industrial  and 
agricultural  prosperity  and  find  that  the  existing  condition  under 
which,  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  for  example,  92.8  of  their 


10  NATIONAL  SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT  ACT. 

entire  population  lives  in  cities,  a  very  serious  menace  to  their 
welfare.  They  are  seeking,  through  the  instrumentality  of  a  per- 
manent exposition  at  Springfield,  to  demonstrate  that  farming  can 
be  made  a  paying  business  and  that  it  is  possible  to  create  more 
attractive  conditions  of  rural  life.  These  gentlemen  have  discov- 
ered that  their  work  exactly  parallels  the  policy  embodied  in  the 
soldier  settlement  plan  and  have  come  to  believe  that  the  soldier 
will  do  as  great  a  work  for  his  country  at  home  as  he  did  abroad, 
while  at  the  same  time  achieving  an  independence  for  himself. 
Hence  they  are  urging  the  support  of  the  measure  by  all  the  members 
from  their  10  States. 

DOES    THE    SOLDIER    WANT    IT  ? 

The  most  vital  question  that  can  be  asked  in  regard  to  this  policy 
is  this:  Does  the  soldier  want  it?  The  answer  is:  He  does.  The 
American  Legion  has  officially  indorsed  the  bill  after  a  careful  con- 
sideration of  its  provisions.  Up  to  the  present  writing  112,088 
soldiers  have  made  formal  application  for  opportunities  of  em- 
ployment and  home-getting  under  the  terms  of  this  bill.  The  num- 
ber, whir-h  is  increasing  every  day,  ranges  all  the  way  from  6,752 
in  Illinois  to  80  in  Delaware. 

The  most  impressive  evidence  in  respect  to  the  soldiers  is  contained 
in  letters  from  commanding  officers  with  the  American  Expeditionary 
Forces  in  Germany.  Mai.  Gen.  Mark  L.  Hersey,  for  example,  in 
command  of  the  Fourth  Division,  American  Expeditionary  Forces, 
was'  requested,  among  others,  by  Secretary  Lane,  to  ascertain  the 
feeling  of  his  men.  He  states  that  he  went  into  the  matter  "with  a 
view  to  determining  hi  actual  figures  the  number  of  men  in  this 
division  that  would  not  only  be  interested  in  farming,  but  interested 
with  sufficient  definiteness  to  take  up  the  work  should  the  plan  be  put 
into  effect."  He  reports  in  detail  upon  each  regiment,  the  net  result 
being  as  follows: 

Present  strength,  officers  and  enlisted  men,  23,363. 
Number  interested  in  soldier  settlement  plan,  4,595. 

Gen.  Hersey  expresses  his  own  opinion  as  follows: 

The  men  who  are  returning  to  America  from  the  European  battle  fields  have  given  to 
their  country  the  best  they  have.  They  have  paid  their  debt  to  America;  not  in  full 
perhaps,  but  in  full  up  to  the  present  time.  It  is  up  to  the  United  States  to  take  care 
of  them;  to  exercise  over  them  a  proper  degree  of  paternalism;  to  make  them  feel  that 
what  they  have  given  up  in  order  to  come  to  the  war  will  be  made  good  by  the  Govern- 
ment. These  men  are  coming  with  a  higher  respect  for  Ameru  an  institutions  and  for 
constituted  authority  than  they  ever  had  before.  They  are  thoroughly  good  citizens 
who  need  only  the  ties  that  bind  them  to  the  land,  that  give  them  a  sense  of  proprietor- 
ship in  the  soil,  that  impel  each  man  to  establish  his  own  home  and  to  rear  his  own 
family.  All  these  your  proposed  plan  should  furnish.  I  am  heartily  in  favor  of  it. 
I  hope  you  may  push  it  to  a  successful  conclusion.  Several  of  the  division  staff  officers 
have  received  letters  similar  to  the  one  that  was  sent  to  me.  I  might  say  that  this 
letter  voices  their  sentiments  as  well  as  my  own. 

The  amendments  to  H.  R.  487  adopted  by  the  committee  are  as 
follows: 

1.  On  page  2,  line  8,  after  the  word  "provided,"  strike  out  the 
period,  insert  a  semicolon,  and  add  the  following: 

Provided,  That  the  rights  and  benefits  conferred  by  this  act  shall  not  extend  to  any 
person  who,  having  been  drafted  for  military  service  under  the  provisions  of  the 
selective-service  act,  shall  have  refused  to -render  military  service  or  to  wear  the 
uniform  of  a  soldier  of  the  United  States. 


NATIONAL  SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT  ACT.  11 

2.  On  page  2,  line  13,  strike  out  the  word  "withdraw." 

3.  On  page  2,  line  14,  strike  out  the  word  "and." 

4.  On  page  2,  line  14,  after  the  word  "deed,"  insert  a  comma  and 
the  words  "or  patents." 

5.  On  page  2,  line  14,  after  the  word  "No,"  insert  the  words 
"projects  shall  be  finally  selected  and  no." 

6.  On  page  2,  line  20,  change  the  period  after  the  word  "Secretary" 
to  a  semicolon  and  add: 

Provided,  That  if  the  governor  or  his  representative  shall  fail  to  act,  then  the  land 
commissioner,  or  the  person  performing  the  functions  of  land  commissioner,  in  such 
State  may  act  in  his  stead  . 

7.  On  page  2,  line  22,  change  the  period  at  the  end  of  said  line  to 
a  semicolon  and  add  : 

Provided,  That  the  Secretary,  with  the  approval  of  the  President,  may  withdraw 
such  public  land  as  may  be  deemed  necessary  for  the  purposes  of  this  act. 

8.  On  page  3,  line  5,  strike  out  the  words  "for  such  purposes"  and 
insert  in  lieu  thereof  "  in  administrative  and  other  work  for  the  pur- 
poses of  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  this  act." 

9.  On  page  3,  line  9,  strike  out  the  figures  "$1,200,"  and  insert  in 
lieu  thereof  "SI,  500." 

10.  On  page  3,  line  14,  after  the  word  "dedication"  insert  the 
words  "of  tracts." 

11.  On  page  3,  line  14,  strike  out  the  words  "schools,  churches." 

12.  On  page  3,  line  15,  strike  out  the  word  "centers." 

13.  On  page  3,  line  17,  strike  out  the  words  "as  orovided  herein" 
and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the  words  "for  the  benefit  of  the  project 
under  such  rules  and  regulations  as  the  Secretary  may  prescribe.  " 

14.  On  page  3,  line  21,  after  the  word  "employed"  insert  the  words 
"and  rendered  substantial  service." 

15.  On  page  3,  line  22,  after  the  word  "of"  inse  t  the  word  "any." 

16.  On  page  4,  line  7,  strike  out  the  words  "relative  and  compara-* 
tive  selling  value"  and  \nsert  in  lieu  thereof  the  words  "selling  value 
compared  with  the  other  units  of  the  project,  the  aggregate  not  to 
exceed  the  total  cost  of  the  project." 

17.  On  page  4,  line  14,  strike  out  the  word  "twenty"  and  in  lieu 
thereof  insert  the  word  "ten." 

18.  On  page  4,  line  14,  strike  out  the  word  "The"  at  the  end  of 
the  line  and  m  lieu  thereof  insert  the  word  "All." 

19.  On  page  4,  line  22,  strike  out  the  word  "ten"  and  insert  in 
lieu  thereof  the  word  "five." 

20.  On  page  5,  line  7,  strike  out  the  words  "public  and  private." 

21.  On  page  5,  line  8,  after  the  word  "projects"  at  the  end  of  sec- 
tion 7,  add  the  following  new  paragraphs  : 

Every  patent  issued  under  this  act  shall  expressly  reserve  to  the  United  States  a 
prior  lien  on  the  land  patented  superior  to  all  other  liens,  claims,  or  demands  whatso- 
ever, for  the  payment  of  all  sums  due  or  to  become  due  to  the  United  States  or  its 
successors  in  connection  with  such  lands  under  any  project  provided  for  in  this  act. 


exceed  a  period  of  ten  years  from  the  date  of  the  contract  of  purchase. 

Lands  acquired  pursuant  to  this  act  shall  be  subject  to  State,  county,  municipal, 
and  local  taxation  and  assessment  after  a  period  of  five  years  from  the  date  of  the 
execution  of  the  contract  of  purchase  in  proportion  as  the  amount  paid  bears  to  the 
purchase  price.  If  the  purchaser  shall  fail  to  pay  such  taxes  or  assessments,  the  same 


12  NATIONAL  SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT  ACT. 

may  be  paid  from  the  fund  hereby  authorized  and  charged  to  the  purchaser  with  inter- 
est at  the  rate  provided  by  law  for  delinquent  taxes  in  the  State  in  which  the  land  is 
located  and  shall  be  a  lien  on  the  property  assessed. 

22.  On  page  5,  lines  10  and  11,  strike  out  the  figures  and  words 
"$800  at  any  one  time,"  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the  figures  and 
words  "$1,200  in  the  aggregate." 

23.  On  page  5,  line  16,  change  the  figures  "60"  to  "75." 

24.  On  page  5,  line  17,  after  the  word  "and,  "insert  the  figures  and 
words  "60  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  the." 

25.  On  page  5,  at  the  end  of  line  17,  insert  as  a  new  paragraph 
the  following: 

Provided  further,  That  in  case  of  emergency  the  Secretary,  in  his  discretion,  may 
postpone  the  payment  of  any  installment  due,  and  may  also  make  additional  loans, 
not  exceeding  two-thirds  of  the  amount  of  the  soldier's  cash  investment  in  his  farm, 
tract,  or  lot;  such  additional  loans  to  bear  interest  at  the  rate  of  4  per  cent  per 
annum,  payable  annually. 

26.  On  page  5,  line  22,  after  the  word  "furnish,"  insert  the  words 
"not  less  than." 

27.  On  page  5,  line  24,  after  the  word  "the,"  insert  the  words 
"selection,  acquisition,  or." 

28.  On  page  6,  line  2,  after  the  word  ( '  by, ' '  insert  the  words  "  or  to. " 

29.  On  page  6,  line  3,  change  the  period  after  the  word  "State" 
to  a  comma  and  strike  out  the  word  "He"  in  the  same  line  and  insert 
in  lieu  thereof  the  word  "and." 

30.  On  page  6,  line  6,  substitute  for  section  10  of  the  bill  the 
following : 

SEC.  10.  Expenditures  for  carrying  out  the  purposes  of  this  act  shall  be  made  out 
of  appropriations  made  annually  by  the  Congress  therefor,  and  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  shall,  for  the  fiscal  year  1919,  and  annually  thereafter,  submit  to  the  Con- 
gress estimates  of  the  amount  of  monev  necessary  to  be  expended  for  carrying  out 
any  or  all  of  the  purposes  authorized  by  this  act,  for  which  purposes  the  sum  of 
$500,000,000  is  hereby  authorized  to  be  appropriated. 

31.  On  page  6  add  a  new  section,  as  follows: 

SEC.  11.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  shall  make  full  report  of  his  proceeding 
under  this  act  to  the  Congress  on  the  first  Monday  of  December  of  each  year. 

32.  On  page  1,  in  the  title  of  the  bill,  after  the  word  "forces"  in 
line  2,  of  said  title,  insert  the  following  words:  "of  the  United  States 
during  the  war  between  the  United  States  arid  Germany  and  her 
allies." 

Also  after  the  word  "reclamation"  in  line  3  of  said  title,  insert  a 
comma  and  the  words  "acquisition  and  development." 
So  that  the  title  as  amended  shall  read: 

To  provide  employment  and  rural  homes  for  those  who  have  served  with  the  military 
or  naval  forces  of  the  United  States  during  the  war  between  the  United  States  and  Ger- 
many and  her  allies  through  the  reclamation,  acquisition,  and  development  of  lands 
to  be  known  as  the  National  soldier  settlement  act. 

The  bill  as  amended  by  the  committee  will  read  as  follows: 

A  BILL  To  provide  employment  and  rural  homes  for  those  who  have  served  with  the  military  and  naval 
forces  of  the  United  States  during  the  war  between  the  United  States  and  Germany  and  her  allies,  through 
the  reclamation,  acquisition,  and  development  of  lands,  to  be  known  as  the  "  National  Soldier  Settlement 
Act." 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America 
in  Congress  assembled,  That  to  provide  employment  and  rural  homes  for  those  who 
have  served  with  the  military  or  naval  forces  of  the  United  States  during  the  war 
between  the  United  States  and  Germany  and  her  allies  and  have  been  honorably 


NATIONAL  SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT  ACT.  13 

sopa-atcd  or  discharged  therefrom  or  placed  in  the  Regular  Army  Reserve,  and  for- 
mer American  citizens  who  served  with,  and  were  honorably  separated  or  discharged 
from,  the  military  or  naval  forces  of  any  of  the  nations  allied  against  the  Central 
Powers,  and  who  have  been  repatriated,  all  of  whom  are  hereinafter  referred  to  as 
so'diers,  there  is  hereby  established  a  fund  in  the  Treasury  to  be  known  as  the  "Na- 
tional Soldier  Settlement  Fund, "  hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  "Fund, "  to  be-  admin- 
istered by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  "Secretary," 
for  the  purposes  herein  stated  and  as  hereinafter  provided: 

Provided,  That  the  rights  and  benefits  conferred  by  this  act  shall  not  extend  to  any 
person  who,  having  been  drafted  for  military  service  under  the  provisions  of  the 
Selective  Service  Act,  shall  have  refused  to  render  military  service  or  to  wear  the 
uniform  of  a  soldier  of  the  United  States. 

SEC.  2.  That  the  Secretary  is  authorized  to  use  the  Fund  for  the  purposes  of  this 
act.  He  may  acquire  by  gift,  purchase,  deed  in  trust,  or  otherwise,  the  necessary 
lands  for  Soldier  Settlement  Projects,  hereinafter  referred  to  as  "Projects,"  and  may 
utilize  and  dispose  of  by  contract,  deed,  or  patent,  public  lands  suitable  for  such 
purposes. 

No  projects  shall  be  finally  selected  and  no  lands  shall  be  acquired,  however, 
unless  the  price  to  be  paid  and  the  conditions  under  which  they  are  to  be  acquired 
shall  be  approved  by  (a)  a  representative  of  the  governor  of  the  State  in  which  the 
lands  are  located;  (b)  an  appraiser  designated  by  the  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board; 
and  (c)  the  Secretary:  Provided,  That  if  the  governor  or  his  representative  shall  fail 
to  act,  then  the  land  commissioner,  or  the  person  performing  the  function  of  land 
commissioner  in  such  State  may  act  in  his  stead. 

Projects  shall  be  selected  with  a  view  to  the  development  of  one  or  more  projects 
in  each  of  the  several  States  in  which  feasible  projects  may  be  found:  Provided,  That 
the  Secretary,  with  the  approval  of  the  President,  may  withdraw  such  public  lands 
as  may  be  deemed  necessary  for  the  purposes  of  this  act. 

SEC.  3.  That  the  Secretary  is  authorized  through  such  agencies  as  he  may  provide 
to  engage  in  such  undertakings  and  do  and  perform  such  work  as  in  his  opinion  is 
necessary  for  the  permanent  reclamation  or  development  of  the  lands  of  projects, 
and  when  he  deems  essential  to  place  them  in  condition  for  use  and  cultivation, 
including  the  building  of  essential  public  roads. 

The  Secretary  shall,  so  far  as  possible,  utilize  the  services  of  soldiers  in  administra- 
tive and  other  work  for  the  purposes  of  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  this  act. 

The  Secretary  may  also,  through  agreement  with  soldiers,  make  provision  for 
necessary  improvements,  but  the  contnbution  from  the  fund  shall  in  no  single  case 
exceed  $1,500,  nor  in  excess  of  three-quarters  of  the  cost  or  value  of  the  improvements. 

SEC.  4.  That  the  lands  of  projects  shall  be  subdivided  into  farms  suitable  for  the 
support  of  a  family  and  in  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary  into  smaller  farm  workers' 
tracts.  Dedication  of  tracts  may  be  made  for  community  and  other  public  purposes. 
Town  sites  suitable  for  the  purposes  of  the  project  may  be  established,  developed,  and 
sold  for  the  benefit  of  the  project  under  such  rules  and  regulations  as  the  Secretary 
may  prescribe. 

SEC.  5.  That  soldiers  who  are  not  the  owners  or  proprietors  of  farms  or  rural  homes 
shall  be  eligible  as  purchasers  of  a  farm  or  farm  workers'  tract.  Preference  shall  be 
given  to  those  who  have  been  employed  and  rendered  substantial  service  in  the  de- 
velopment of  any  such  projects,  and  as  between  applicants  with  a  view  of  safeguarding 
the  settler  and  the  United  States,  so  far  as  practicable,  against  loss  or  failure.  The 
Secretary  shall  make  regulations  general  in  character,  or  applicable  to  specific  projects, 
as  to  residence  and  cultivation  with  a  view  of  carrying  out  the  purpose  of  making  the 
soldier  settlements  the  permanent  home  of  the  soldier  purchasers. 

SEC.  6.  That  sale  prices  shall  be  fixed  with  a  view  of  repaying  the  total  cost  of  each 
project,  and  the  price  fixed  for  each  farm,  tract,  or  lot  shall  represent  as  nearly  as 
practicable  its  selling  value  compared  with  the  other  units  of  the  project,  the  aggre- 
gate not  to  exceed  the  total  cost  of  the  project.  Approved  applicants  shall  at  the 
time  of  entering  into  contract  of  purchase  make  a  first  payment  of  5  per  centum  of 
the  sale  price.  The  balance  shall  be  paid  in  amortizing  payments  extending  over  a 
period  to  be  fixed  by  the  Secretary,  not  to  exceed  forty  years.  Sums  advanced  for 
improvements  shall  be  repaid  in  amortizing  payments  extending  over  a  period  to 
be  fixed  by  the  Secretary,  not  to  exceed  ten  years.  All  amortizing  payments  shall 
bear  interest  at  the  rate  of  4  per  centum  per  annum,  payable  annually,  computed 
from  date  of  contract.  The  contracts  for  the  sale  of  the  farms,  tracts,  and  lots  shall 
provide  for  cancellations  and  forfeitures  of  payments  made  under  the  contract  for 
failure  to  comply  therewith. 

SEC.  7.  Patents  or  deeds  to  project  lands  issued  within  five  years  from  the  date  of 
contract  of  sale  shall  contain  the  condition  that  no  transfer,  assignment,  mortgage, 


14  NATIONAL  SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT  ACT. 

or  lease  made  during  that  period  shall  be  valid  without  the  approval  of  the  Secretary, 
and  no  transfer,  assignment,  mortgage,  or  lease  of  any  right,  title,  or  interest  held 
under  a  contract  of  sale  shall  be  valid  at  any  time  without  the  approval  of  the  Secre- 
tary. The  Secretary  shall  make  all  necessary  regulations  for  the  carrying  out  of  the 
provisions  and  purposes  of  this  act  and  for  safeguarding  the  interests  of  the  settler 
and  of  the  United  States,  and  is  authorized  to  issue  patents  or  deeds  for  the  lands 
embraced  in  farm-?,  tracts,  and  lots  within  projects. 

Every  patent  issued  under  this  act  shall  expressly  reserve  to  the  United  States  a 
prior  lien  on  the  land  patented  superior  to  all  other  liens,  claims,  or  demands  what- 
soever, for  the  payment  of  all  sums  due  or  to  become  due  to  the  United  States  or  its 
successors  in  connection  with  such  lands  under  any  project  provided  for  in  this  act. 

Except  as  herein  otherwise  provided  no  lands  acquired  under  the  provisions  of 
this  act  shall  in  any  event  becime  liable  to  the  satisfaction  of  any  debt  contracted 
prior  to  the  issuing  of  the  patent  therefor:  Provided,  however,  That  such  exemption 
shall  not  exceed  a  period  of  ten  years  from  the  date  of  the  contract  of  purchase. 

Lands  acquired  pursuant  to  this  act  shall  be  subject  to  State,  county,  municipal, 
and  local  taxation  and  assessment  after  a  period  of  five  years  from  the  date  of  the 
execution  of  the  contract  of  purchase  in  proportion  as  the  amount  paid  bears  to  the 
purchase  price.  If  the  purchaser  shall  fail  to  pay  such  taxes  or  assessments,  the  same 
may  be  paid  from  the  fund  hereby  authorized  and  charged  to  the  purchaser  with 
interest  at  the  rate  provided  by  law  for  delinquent  taxes  in  the  State  in  which  the 
land  is  located  and  shall  be  a  lien  on  the  property  assessed. 

SEC.  8.  That  the  Secretary  is  also  authorized  to  make  short-time  loans  from  the 
fund,  not  to  exceed  $1,200  in  the  aggregate,  to  a  soldier  settler  for  the  purchase  oi 
necessary  live  stock  and  equipment,  and  provision  shall  be  made  for  the  repayment 
of  such  loans  during  a  period  not  to  exceed  five  years  with  interest  on  deferred  pay- 
ments at  4  per  centum  per  annum,  payable  annually,  computed  from  date  of  con- 
tract: Provided,  That  no  such  loans  shall  exceed  75  per  centum  of  the  cost  of  the  live 
stock  and  60  per  centum  of  the  cost  of  the  equipment  purchased:  Provided  further , 
That  in  case  of  emergency  the  Secretary  in  his  discretion  may  postpone  the  payment 
of  any  installment  due  and  may  also  make  additional  loans,  not  exceeding  two-thirds 
of  the  amount  of  the  soldier's  cash  investment  in  his  farm,  tract,  or  lot;  such  additional 
loans  to  bear  interest  at  the  rate  of  4  per  centum  per  annum,  payable  annually. 

SEC.  9.  That  whenever  any  State  shall  provide  funds  to  be  expended  in  cooperation 
with  the  United  States  to  provide  rural  homes  for  soldiers,  the  Secretary  shall  have 
authority  to  enter  into  contracts  for  such  cooperation,  and  when  the  State  shall  fur- 
nish not"  less  than  25  per  centum  of  the  necessary  funds  the  Secretary  may  authorize 
the  State,  subject  to  his  general  supervision,  to  carry  on  the  selection,  acquisition,  or 
subdivision  of  the  land,  improvement  of  farms,  and  the  aid  and  direction  of  develop- 
ment after  settlement.  The  Secretary  is  authorized  to  provide  for  reimbursement 
of  funds  so  advanced  by  or  to  the  State,  and  may  also  cooperate  with  other  agencies 
to  the  extent  he  may  deem  advisable  and  likewise  provide  for  reimbursement  to 
them  of  funds  advanced. 

SEC.  10.  Expenditures  for  carrying  out  the  purposes  of  this  Act  shall  be  made  out 
of  appropriations  made  annually  by  the  Congress  therefor,  and  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  shall,  for  the  fiscal  year  1919,  and  annually  thereafter,  submit  to  the  Congress 
estimates  of  the  amount  of  money  necessary  to  be  expended  for  carrying  out  any  or 
all  of  the  purposes  authorized  by  this  Act,  for  which  purposes  the  sum  of  $500,000,000 
is  hereby  authorized  to  be  appropriated. 

SEO.  11.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  shall  make  full  report  of  his  proceedings 
under  this  Act  to  the  Congress  on  the  first  Monday  of  December  of  each  year. 


VIEWS   OF   THE  MINORITY   MEMBERS   OF    THE  PUBLIC 
LANDS  COMMITTEE  ON  H.  R.  487. 


The  undersigned  members  of  the  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands 
offer  tho  following  objections  to  H.  R.  487,  known  as  the  "  National  sol- 
dier settlement  act."  Every  Member  of  Congress  is  deeply  interested 
in  the  nature  of  the  legislation  to  be  enacted  in  the  interest  of  the 
future  welfare  of  those  who  took  part  in  the  Great  War.  We  are  con- 
vinced that  most  Members  who  carefully  investigate  the  proposition 
will  agree  with  the  minority  that  the  proposed  bill  if  adopted  would 
discriminate  against  millions  of  men  who  fought  in  the  war  and 
impose  upon  the  already  overburdened  taxpayer  in  an  initial  appro- 
priation of  $500,000,000  a  financial  obligation  altogether  out  of  pro- 
portion to  any  possible  good  that  might  come  out  of  it  as  it  is  framed. 

The  scheme  proposed  in  this  bill  was  first  conceived  in  the  fear  that 
after  the  war  was  over  millions  of  young  men  would  return  to  this  coun- 
try and  find  themselves  out  of  employment.  This  fear  was  entertained 
by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  who,  six  months  ago,  pointed  out  that 
men  of  vision  who  could  look  forward  six  months  would  realize  their 
responsibility  in  the  matter  of  providing  jobs  for  the  returned  soldiers. 
Many  men  of  standing  had  the  same  apprehension.  But  some 
economic  phenomena  occurred.  Three  quarters  of  the  soldiers  have 
returned  to  civil  life  and  there  is  a  great  shortage1  of  labor  in  the  cities 
and  on  the  farms.  The  first  three  words  descriptive  of  the  bill  H.  R. 
487  are  "  to  provide  employment,"  but  it  was  acknowledged  before  the 
committee  and  is  printed  in  the  hearing  that  this  feature  of  the  bill 
does  not  obtain  at  the  present  time.  This  fact  was  admitted  by  every 
witness  who  testified  before  the  committee,  including  Director  Davis 
of  the  Reclamation  Service,  who  has  had  as  much  to  do  with  the  gen- 
eral proposition  as  any  one  man.  We  have  witnessed  the  complete 
collapse  of  the  contention  that  the  Government  will  have  to  give  work 
to  any  great  percentage  of  soldiers  in  order  that  they  may  not  suffer 
by  being  out  of  employment.  Yet  this  bill,  stripped  of  its  very 
vitals,  so  far  as  its  urgent  necessity  is  concerned,  deprived  of  the 
original  excuse  given  for  its  birth,  is  still  urged  upon  Congress.  Now 
it  is  offered  as  an  appreciation  of  the  soldier,  a  reward  for  his  service 
and  what  he  endured.  That  being  the  case,  the  measure  must  now 
be  judged  by  its  fairness  to  all  the  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  who 
have  been  honorably  discharged  from  the  service  of  the  United  States. 
Surely  it  must  generally  be  accepted  that  if  the  Government  recognizes 
the  principle  involved  in  offering  assistance  and  opportunity  to  the 
men  who  were  in  the  service,  then  the  Government  must  adopt  an 
equitable  measure,  one  that  will  carry  provisions  for  every  man  and 
not  only  for  a  few,  as  is  proposed  in  this  bill.  The  United  States 
must  not  discriminate  in  dealing  with  the  soldier. 

If  helpful  legislation  is  enacted,  it  must  be  for  all.  The  testimony 
in  the  printed  hearings  of  this  committee  shows  that  while  this  bill 

15 


16  NATIONAL  SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT  ACT. 

authorizes  an  appropriation  of  $500,000,000,  not  more  than  80,000- 
soldiers  of  the  4,500,000  could  be  provided  for  in  the  expenditure  of 
this  amount  of  money.  Only  those  soldiers  who  care  to  go  on  a  farm 
would  be  aided;  only  those  soldiers  who  care  to  live  in  community 
centers  would  receive  consideration.  But  let  us  examine  how  much 
is  done  by  this  bill  even  for  the  few  thousands  who  come  within  its 
scope.  The  average  soldier  by  the  provisions  of  this  bill  must  have, 
it  is  admitted  by  the  proponents  of  this  measure,  approximately 
$1,200.  He  must  make  an  initial  payment  on  the  price  ot  the  farm  of 
5  per  centum  of  the  sale  price.  He  will  be  loaned  for  necessary 
improvements  $1,500  only  after  he  has  invested  a  quarter  of  that 
amount  himself;  he  will  be  loaned  $1,200  for  the  purchase  of  neces- 
sary live  stock,  only  after  he  has  put  into  it  a  quarter  of  that  amount 
himself.  If  a  soldier  is  penniless  ne  will  be  given  a  job  on  one  of  these 
great  projects.  It  is  claimed  that  on  a  wage  of  from  $3  to  $4  per  day 
he  will  be  able  to  support  a  wife  and  family  and  in  from  three  to  five 
years  save  the  $1,200  that  it  will  be  necessary  for  him  to  pay  down 
before  he  will  be  allowed  to  settle  on  one  of  the  farms  he  has  worked 
to  reclaim.  If  the  projects  have  been  completed,  but  the  men 
who  worked  on  it  have  been  unable  to  save  the  money  for  initial 
payment,  it  will  be  no  concern  of  Uncle  Sam.  They  will  have 
reclaimed  the  farms  in  the  swamps  of  the  South,  the  arid  lands  of  the 
West,  or  cut-over  lands  in  other  parts.  They  toiled  but  their  work 
is  done  and  they  must  seek  employment  in  some  other  quarter  while 
Uncle  Sam  sells  the  farms  to  some  other  soldiers  who  have  $1,200  but 
who  perhaps  did  not  work  on  the  project.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  the  soldier  must  pay  back  to  the  Government  every  cent  he  bor- 
rowed with  4  per  centum  interest  and  the  total  cost  of  the  farm  must 
also  be  paid.  It  is  not  only  possible  but  probable  that  the  cost  of  the 
farm  to  the  soldier  will  be  greater  than  what  a  farm  would  have  cost 
him  outside  of  the  Government  project  and  nearer  to  markets.  All 
the  overhead  expense  of  the  entire  proposition  will  have  to  be  borne  by 
the  soldier.  He  will  have  to  pay  for  the  extravagance  of  Government 
administration;  his  will  be  the  obligation  for  all  mistakes  that  may 
be  made.  Every  cent  of  expense  will  be  added  up  by  the  Depart- 
ment of  the  Interior  and  the  soldier  will  be  handed  the  bill. 

The  testimony  of  the  proponents  of  the  bill  shows  that  the  scheme 
which  was  originally  to  provide  employment  for  soldiers  has  become 
a  great  reclamation  project.  But  such  a  colossal  plan  for  reclamation 
of  lands  would  never  have  even  been  seriously  considered  had  it  not  ; 
been  possible  to  link  the  name  of  the  soldier  with  it.  And  soon  the 
inevitable  selfish  interests  appeared.  Men  who  have  much  to  gain 
in  the  upbuilding  of  certain  localities  began  to  talk  about  "helping 
the  soldier,"  the  while  he  labored  industriously  in  behalf  of  this  bill 
which  proposes  not  to  reclaim  public  lands  only  but  for  the  most  part 
that  the  Government  shall  buy  the  land  that  they  shall  afterWarda 
reclaim  and  sell  to  the  soldier.  A  publicity  agent  was  put  to  work 
spreading  propaganda  all  over  the  country.  With  every  Member  of 
Congress  favorable  to  the  enactment  ot  some  legislation  for  the 
soldiers'  welfare,  an  agent  was  employed  by  the  Southern  Settlement 
&  Development  Co.  With  brazenness  amounting  almost  to  effrontery 
this  press  agent  attended  all  open  meetings  of  the  committee  and 
then  gave  to  the  papers  of  the  country  glowing  accounts  of  what  was 
claimed  to  be  the  beneficial  provisions  of  this  measure  for  the  soldier. 


NATIONAL  SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT  ACT.  •  17 

This  press  agent  was  not  employed  by  the  soldiers  who  were  supposed 
to  benefit  by  this  legislation,  nor  by  the  Department  of  the  Interior, 
so  that  there  is  a  natural  conclusion  that  private  interests  had  some- 
thing at  stake. 

Wo  hold  that  soldiers  must  be  allowed  to  exercise  their  individual 
choice  in  the  location  of  their  tracts  of  land.  "We  contend  that  the 
land  proposed  would,  when  reclaimed,  cost  the  soldier  more  than 
equally  as  good,  or,  in  many  instances,  better  land  would  cost  him 
in  localities  where  agriculture  is  a  proven  success.  The  great  agri- 
cultural States  of  Illinois  and  Iowa  have  been  brought  to  their  great 
perfection  through  individual  initiative.  The  best  improved  lands  of 
Ohio,  Illinois,  Missouri,  Kansas,  and  Nebraska,  are  selling  from  $200 
to  S500  an  acre;  a  very  small  tract  in  one  of  these  States  will  support 
a  family  in  comfort.  There  are  in  the  New  England  States,  and  in 
Ohio  and  Indiana,  Pennsylvania,  New  York,  and  Virginia,  many 
abandoned  farms  that  are  awaiting  profitable  cultivation.  We  are 
told  that  these  lands  can  be  bought  for  less  than  cost  of  the  improve- 
ments. Many  an  ambitious  young  soldier  with  a  small  loan  on  long 
time  at  a  low  interest  rate  would  have  there  a  much  better  promise 
of  success.  We  believe  that  the  plan  submitted  in  H.  R.  487  will  be 
a  most  expensive  failure  because  the  bill  as  it  is  presented  will  not 
appeal  to  enough  soldiers  to  make  it  a  success. 

The  members  of  the  committee  signing  this  minority  report  are  in 
favor  of  extending  an  opportunity  to  every  soldier,  sailor,  or  marine 
of  this  war  or  any  other  war.  It  being  claimed  that  H.  R.  487 
recognizes  the  principle  of  aiding  the  soldier,  we  would  dp  the  fair 
thing  and  include  all.  We  would  provide  for  the  city  soldier  .an  op- 
portunity to  buy  a  home  with  the  aid  of  the  credit  of  the  Government 
of  the  United  States;  we  would  provide  for  the  young  farmer  soldier 
a  chance  to  buy  a  farm  all  ready  for  cultivation  right  in  his  own  State 
and  among  the  relatives  and  friends  of  his  lifetime.  It  should  not 
be  necessary  that  this  boy  because  he  went  to  war  should  have  to 
forever  give  up  the  family  ties  and  go  into  a  settlement  where  there 
would  be  a  community  of  former  soldiers,  and  for  him  to  give  up  all 
the  companionships  of  his  youth.  We  would  divide  whatever  money 
Congress  appropriates  between  the  States  in  accordance  with  the 
proportions  of  soldiers  furnished  by  the  State.  Let  there  be  reclama- 
tion in  States  where  it  is  feasible.  We  would  reclaim  and  develop 
the  lands;  we  would  provide  an  antidote  for  Bolshevism  by  en- 
couraging and  helping  the  man  in  the  city  to  own  his  home;  we 
would  avoid  all  suspicion  of  hypocrisy  by  doing  exactly  for  the  soldier 
what  we  claim  to  do  in  the  bill. 

As  many  different  measures  are  now  pending  in  Congress  to  pro- 
vide opportunity  for  the  soldiers,  and  as  Congress  is  about  to  take  a 
recess  at  the  tune  we  are  obliged  to  file  this  report,  we  defer  making 
any  specific  recommendation,  but  at  the  proper  time,  when  H.  R. 
487  is  called  before  the  House,  we  will  offer  such  propositions  as  we 
are  convinced  will  give  every  soldier  the  opportunity  Congress  be- 
lieves he  should  have. 

BERTRAND   H.   SNELL. 
CHAS.  A.  NICHOLS, 
HAYS  B.  WHITE, 
JOHN  S.  BENHAM. 


INDEX. 

Page. 

Atkeson,  Thomas  C.,   representative  National  Grange,   Patrons  of  Hus- 
bandry    69,  351 

Baker,  Hon.  Newton  D.,  Secretary  of  War 518 

Bashure,  Capt.  Ellis,  financial  section  United  States  Army 328 

Boies,  Hon.  W.  D..  Representative  from  Iowa 294 

Brannin,  Carl,  secretary  Farmers'  Single  Tax  League 222 

Chamberlain,  Hoyt,  secretary  National  Civic  Betterment  League 77 

Chisholm,  D.  V.,  legislative  representative  Spanish-American  War  Vet- 
erans    157 

Cole,  Gen.  Charles  H.,  Boston,  Mass.,  Twenty-sixth  Division 105 

Cox,  J.  N.,  representing  governor  of  Tennessee 415 

Davis,  Hon.  A.  P.,  director  Reclamation   Service 129,  429,  480 

Davis,  Hon.  D.  W.,  governor  of  Idaho 271 

Drane,   Hon.   Herbert  J.,  Representative  from  Florida 348 

Drummond,  W.  I.,  chairman  board  governors  International  Farm  Con- 
gress   . 502 

Ferris,  Hon.  Scott,  Representative  from  Oklahoma 677 

Gandy,  Hon.  Harry  L..  Representative  from  South  Dakota 381 

Garner,  Hon.  John  N.,  Representative  from  Texas 187 

Gibson,  John  I.,  Michigan  Land  Settlement  Commission 147 

Gooding,  Hon.  F.  R.,  former  governor  of  Idaho 228 

Green,  W.  R.  jr.,  Buhl,  Idaho,  formerly  United  States  Army 761 

Hallan,   H.  C.,   publicity  agent,   Southern  Settlement  and  Development 

Organization 653 

Hansen,  William  L.,  Salt  Lake  City,  bishop  and  manager  colonization 

department,  Mormon  Church 728 

Harris,  John  J.,  president  and  general  manager  Big  Horn  Irrigation  & 

Power    Co.,    Montana 678 

Hastings,  Hon.  W.  W.,  Representative  from  Oklahoma,  letter  from 751 

Hathorn,  H.  Guy,  investment  banker,  Memphis,  Tenn 260 

Hunter,    H.    F.,    supervisor   of   agriculture,   Chicago,   Milwaukee   &   St. 

Paul  Railroad 130 

Jeffries,  Hugh,  president  American  Military  Reform  Association 694 

Kent,  Hon.  William,  United  States  Tariff  Commission 176 

Lane,  Hon.  Franklin  K.,  Secretary  of  the  Interior . 30 

Layton,  Hon.  Caleb  R.,  Representative  from  Delaware 476 

Lehniann,  Eniile  A.,  former  private,  Company  D,  326th  Infantry,  United 

States  Army 647 

Littlejohn,  Capt.  K.  S.,  United  States  Engineers 471 

Lund,  Mrs.  Haviland  H.,  secretary  of  the  Forward-to-the-Land  League—  558 

Marsh,  Benjamin  C.,  Farmers'  National  Council 388 

Meehan,  J.  Leo,  chairman  soldiers'  settlement  committee,  Utah,  Ameri- 
can Legion,  letter  from 778 

Miller,  John  D.,  representative  Dairymen's  League 629 

Mondell,  Hon.  F.  W..  Representative  from  Wyoming 3,23,52.595 

Morgan,  Hon.  Dick  T.,  Representative  from  Oklahoma-- 280 

McCracken.  Hon.  Robert  M.,  former  Representative  from  Idaho 643 

McDnffie,  Hon.  John.  Representative  from  Alabama 424 

McElroy,  Col.,  National  Tribune,  Grand  Array  of  the  Republic 

Nelson.' Wilbur  A.,  secretary  Tennessee  Soldiers'  Settlement  Board 167 

Oxley,  Mrs.  W.  H..  representing  herself,  Washington,  D.  C 

Park,  Hon.  Frank,  Representative  from  Georgia 255 

Porter.  Charles  D.,  president  Orleans  County  Farm  P>ureau  Association--  031 

Richards,  J.  H.,  attorney,  from  Boise,  Idaho 97 


li  INDEX. 

Page. 

Robertson,  Hon.  J.  B.  A.,  governor  of  Oklahoma 247 

Rosen  thai,  B.  Philip,  Human  Welfare  Association 331 

Saulsbury,  F.  A.,  president  Ontario  County  Farm  Bureau  Association 630 

Secretary  of  the  Interior,  report  of Appendix  A 

Shepherd,  It.  E.,  Jerome,  Idaho 555 

Sinnott,  Chairman  N.  J.,  report  for  committee  to  the  House Appendix  B 

Springer,  Charles,  representing  governor  of  New  Mexico 416 

Spry,  Hon.  William,  former  governor  of  Utah 778 

Starr,  Western,  Farmers'  National  Single  Tax  League 204 

Sterling,  Henry,  legislative  agent  American  Federation  of  Labor 81 

Summers,  Hon.  J.  W.,  Representative  from  Washington 423 

Tiniberlake,  Hon.  Charles  B.,  Representative  from  Colorado 93 

Titus,  El  wood  W.,  representative  New  York  State  Federation  of  Farm 

Bureaus  618 

Wilson,  Hon.  Riley  J.,  Representative  from  Louisiana 113 

Wilson,  Hon.  William  B.,  Secretary  of  Labor,  letter  from—' 755 

Wood.  Hon.  William  R.,  Representative  from  Indiana 531 

o 


